Is technology developing too slowly?
- Thread starter On Fire
- Start date
locomotive
come on baby, do the locomotion
Solar powered outdoor air conditioning will reverse global warming. I expect my Nobel Prize to come any day now...
I don't think technological solutions are the answer without massive social change.
I don't think technological solutions are the answer without massive social change.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
We're in a period famous for technology not developing quick enough and where everyone can keep up with the pace of technological innovation.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Yep, and I'd even say technology developed to "solve" the problems as framed by the current social set-up will as likely make things worse, by and large.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I agree, which makes it a shame that even the pathetically inadequate climate change targets we already have in place globally are all based on "net zero" which invokes a completely non-existent tech, namely a huge capacity for carbon capture and storage which we don't have and which we are obviously failing at inventing at any meaningful scale.
"Net zero" is basically the modern version of God, it's our imaginary friend who will save us, but sadly doesn't actually exist.
mango5
Endeavour era
Thought I posted this yesterday 
The idea that technology will rescue humanity/the planet from environmental degradation has been a convenient/dangerous fantasy for decades.
Still, it's better than the idea that population 'control' is the answer. That one is probably centuries old.
Anyway, there's probably a colouring book you can learn from (@ OP)
Agreed, just not the change that Ehrlich is still banging on about ('foregoing' population) The Population Bomb, 50 Years Later: A Conversation with Paul Ehrlich
And not these technologies Pete Howson on Cryptocarbon
The idea that technology will rescue humanity/the planet from environmental degradation has been a convenient/dangerous fantasy for decades.
Still, it's better than the idea that population 'control' is the answer. That one is probably centuries old.
Anyway, there's probably a colouring book you can learn from (@ OP)
Agreed, just not the change that Ehrlich is still banging on about ('foregoing' population) The Population Bomb, 50 Years Later: A Conversation with Paul Ehrlich
And not these technologies Pete Howson on Cryptocarbon
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
I had a read of the crypto carbon article - capitalism finding new ways to rob the poorest and transfer wealth to the richestThought I posted this yesterday
The idea that technology will rescue humanity/the planet from environmental degradation has been a convenient/dangerous fantasy for decades.
Still, it's better than the idea that population 'control' is the answer. That one is probably centuries old.
Anyway, there's probably a colouring book you can learn from (@ OP)
Agreed, just not the change that Ehrlich is still banging on about ('foregoing' population) The Population Bomb, 50 Years Later: A Conversation with Paul Ehrlich
And not these technologies Pete Howson on Cryptocarbon
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
what have you been doing to speed up technological development?
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
We should all be wearing silver suits.
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
Did you never visit Top Man in the 90s?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
From the looks of things, stillsuits or something like them are going to become essential clothing in certain parts of the world.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
But to answer the thread more seriously, technology will inevitably be part of any working solution. This idea that we can address the crisis purely through changing personal habits is a bunch of individualist neoliberal nonsense.
For example, with or without capitalism, we're still going to need fresh water supplies. Aquifers are being drained too quickly to be sustainable, Rivers are running dry as glaciers retreat. Thankfully there is is plenty of actual water on this planet, but most of it is salty. So desalination will be key. But that's energy intensive. Indeed a lot of solutions to the climate crisis are energy intensive. Energy is critical. Nuclear fusion research is showing promise, but the crisis is now. Thankfully we already have nuclear fission as a mature non-carbon source of energy that's significantly more dense than solar. Would have been better to have started building more fission capacity back in the 1970s, and there was indeed some movement in that direction back then thanks to the oil shock, but then of course the fossil fuel companies did their damnedest to strangle that in its crib, and so here we are. Nevertheless, the second best time is right now.
For example, with or without capitalism, we're still going to need fresh water supplies. Aquifers are being drained too quickly to be sustainable, Rivers are running dry as glaciers retreat. Thankfully there is is plenty of actual water on this planet, but most of it is salty. So desalination will be key. But that's energy intensive. Indeed a lot of solutions to the climate crisis are energy intensive. Energy is critical. Nuclear fusion research is showing promise, but the crisis is now. Thankfully we already have nuclear fission as a mature non-carbon source of energy that's significantly more dense than solar. Would have been better to have started building more fission capacity back in the 1970s, and there was indeed some movement in that direction back then thanks to the oil shock, but then of course the fossil fuel companies did their damnedest to strangle that in its crib, and so here we are. Nevertheless, the second best time is right now.
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
The great hope is carbon capture but even the best solutions mean we're still shitting out carbon (and that does appear to be the hope of corporations and politicians, that we can have our cake and eat by producing a fuck ton of carbon and capturing it)
Sadly without changing habits or lifestyle choices I just can't see that as a viable long term solution, just keeping status quo until something inevitably goes wrong and we end up back here again.
Nuclear powered desalination plants and hydrogen production. Intermediary technologies until cold fusion actually becomess a reality. Solar, more solar every where, more deep sea wind power, hydro power. The UK is apparently actually quite world leading in the latter. There are big technological hurdles to deep ocean wind power but people are working on it.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
maomao
普費斯
And the idea that we can just keep thundering along the way we have been is inane futurist tosh. We need to collectively change our habits.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
I suspect that asking ordinary folks to willingly impoverish themselves is gonna be a much harder sell than changing how electricity is generated. Especially if it's obvious that governments and corporations aren't also changing their ways. Good luck with that.
maomao
普費斯
Changing to nuclear will not prevent climate catastrophe, it will barely even prolong it. It's not carbon free and you have no idea what to do with the waste.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
You do know how nuclear fission works, right? If nuclear isn't carbon free, then by that standard neither are renewables, since carbon is also emitted in their construction and maintenance.
Oh yeah, and high level nuclear waste can be reprocessed, turning it into more fuel and other useful things. Once all that stuff has been taken out, what's left over isn't much more radioactive than natural uranium (since all the "hot" stuff that drives nuclear reactors etc has been extracted), and can be stored underground in concrete-lined containers in a vitrified form.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
