View Full Version : Bezos Beyond
I see that on July 20, Jeff Bezos is scheduled to become the first billionaire in space. You can even bid on a ticket to ride along. Does this mean that for a few soaring minutes someone else will be the richest person on Earth? Free shipping to the International Space Station?
I’m looking forward to a future where space travel is not run by government employees.
catherine
6-11-21, 11:38am
I think Jeff Bezos has made a comment that is both correct and infuriating, and that is:
"We humans have to go to space if we are going to continue to have a thriving civilization. We have become big as a population, as a species, and this planet is relatively small. We see it in things like climate change and pollution and heavy industry. We are in the process of destroying this planet." (bolding mine)
The fact that this is an assumption we have to accept as inevitable is crazy! We have this sacred space we've been given where up until less than a couple of hundred years ago we co-existed nicely with all the other elements of the earth: water, air, soil, flora and fauna. So we crap it up with industry and instead of saying "we have to clean up our act" we say "Hey, we can move out of this polluted dung heap and spend billions to adapt to an extraterrestrial home."
Didn't our mothers tell us to clean up our rooms? To leave things as we found them? I don't care if Bezos wants to go traveling in space. I don't care if Hilton wants to put a resort on Mars. But I do care that we just take it for granted that if we create unliveable conditions on earth through our own foolishness it doesn't matter. We don't have to fix it. Grrr..
What is the difference between an employee of Bezos and your government? They all require intelligence, accuracy, vision etc., do they not?
Who will set the checks and balances of space travel as Russia, China, the UK and US and others join the game of space travel? Then it will be governed by international agency employees with oversight of US efforts by the other countries.
Perhaps you need to clarify for me the actual point that your OP was driving towards.
ApatheticNoMore
6-11-21, 12:04pm
I think Jeff Bezos has made a comment that is both correct and infuriating, and that is:
"We humans have to go to space if we are going to continue to have a thriving civilization. We have become big as a population, as a species, and this planet is relatively small. We see it in things like climate change and pollution and heavy industry. We are in the process of destroying this planet." (bolding mine)
it's not correct as the "solution" of going into space won't work. But honestly the people saying stuff like this aren't too bright, they might be in a very limited sphere - running amazon perhaps, but there are of limited intelligence, limited to that pretty much.
I believe that to survive as a species, long-term, we will have to go into space. It's just math.
One of my current projects is using a large network of telescopes to detect and track earth orbit crossing asteroids...
Sooner or later, this planet is going to have a very bad day, and it would be best if we had some other options.
This *doesn't* mean "crap up the Earth, then onto the next planet to pillage" - it's not an either/or thing. (And heck, it's gotta be easier to "fix" Earth back up than to terraform some other place... I mean, except for the paperwork...)
As to Bezos being of "limited intelligence", well, I went to college with him, and he seemed reasonably smart, across a range of disciplines, though not one of the outlier super-smart people. His statement about the need to get into space is in line with similar conclusions by Very Very Smart people.
frugal-one
6-11-21, 1:26pm
I believe that to survive as a species, long-term, we will have to go into space. It's just math.
One of my current projects is using a large network of telescopes to detect and track earth orbit crossing asteroids...
Sooner or later, this planet is going to have a very bad day, and it would be best if we had some other options.
This *doesn't* mean "crap up the Earth, then onto the next planet to pillage" - it's not an either/or thing. (And heck, it's gotta be easier to "fix" Earth back up than to terraform some other place... I mean, except for the paperwork...)
As to Bezos being of "limited intelligence", well, I went to college with him, and he seemed reasonably smart, across a range of disciplines, though not one of the outlier super-smart people. His statement about the need to get into space is in line with similar conclusions by Very Very Smart people.
Happy to report I probably will be dead by then.
I believe that to survive as a species, long-term, we will have to go into space. It's just math.
One of my current projects is using a large network of telescopes to detect and track earth orbit crossing asteroids...
Sooner or later, this planet is going to have a very bad day, and it would be best if we had some other options.
This *doesn't* mean "crap up the Earth, then onto the next planet to pillage" - it's not an either/or thing. (And heck, it's gotta be easier to "fix" Earth back up than to terraform some other place... I mean, except for the paperwork...)
As to Bezos being of "limited intelligence", well, I went to college with him, and he seemed reasonably smart, across a range of disciplines, though not one of the outlier super-smart people. His statement about the need to get into space is in line with similar conclusions by Very Very Smart people.
Bezos was the one that suggested that climate change, pollution and industry is what is necessitating some people wanting to ditch the Titanic. I'm assuming the math you are referring to is the growing population and the resources needed to support all of us. OK. But we can also argue if we didn't consume so many resources to begin with; if we didn't pollute the air and water; if we didn't strip the topsoil; if we didn't create an economic system that is based on consumption; if we didn't get used to modern 20th century luxuries like electricity and plane transport, maybe we'd be in a better place. I don't object to the exploration, I object to how we take our destructive habits for granted. That's what needs to be "fixed."
Who will set the checks and balances of space travel as Russia, China, the UK and US and others join the game of space travel? Then it will be governed by international agency employees with oversight of US efforts by the other countries.
Will that necessarily be the case? International control over things like fisheries or the Arctic resources being exposed by melting ice seem fairly loose as far as checks and balances are concerned. China can pretty much ignore maritime law as they construct “islands” and try to seize control of large tracts of ocean. I don’t see some future version of the EU or UN issuing laws for the solar system without the means to enforce their edicts. I think it will look more like the Age of Discovery or the Scramble for Africa as various groups carve out areas of operation for themselves. Will there be various bureaucracies pretending to be in charge? Probably, but I doubt they will have much of an impact in the foreseeable future.
I'm assuming the math you are referring to is the growing population and the resources needed to support all of us.
No, I was referring to the eventual impact of a giant space rock, wiping out most any large critter on the planet. Which has happened before, and will likely happen again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceguard
As to us messing up this planet, that's just silly of us. It's a perfectly good planet, and easier to fix than moving somewhere else. I hate moving.
ApatheticNoMore
6-11-21, 2:54pm
If we didn't have such a growing population, really that was the EASY way (compared to living in a cave), but not one that was or is taken. Exploration is one thing, much of which doesn't require sending humans anywhere, replicating the advantages of life on earth another and very doubtful.
BTW, enjoy these discussions here. My regular circle of contacts does not usually tackle such subjects and I am really interested in them.
No, I was referring to the eventual impact of a giant space rock, wiping out most any large critter on the planet. Which has happened before, and will likely happen again.
Oh. That kind of math. Well, I guess there's a limit to what we can control as far as that goes.
It seems quite unlikely that there is another planet out there that will have conditions that are even remotely close to hospitable for human habitation without massive changes imposed on it by the humans when they arrive or the creation of an artificial human suitable bubble on that planet. We will not, in even remotely large numbers, be leaving earth to go live elsewhere within the lifetime of anyone alive today.
It seems quite unlikely that there is another planet out there that will have conditions that are even remotely close to hospitable for human habitation without massive changes imposed on it by the humans when they arrive or the creation of an artificial human suitable bubble on that planet. We will not, in even remotely large numbers, be leaving earth to go live elsewhere within the lifetime of anyone alive today.
Even if the odds are surpassingly small, there are an awful lot of planets out there. And the whole human race doesn’t need to make the move for the species to survive. And just because it won’t happen the day after tomorrow doesn’t mean it won’t happen. Perhaps a century or two from now people will be demanding the removal of a statue of Jeff Bezos for whatever cultural crime is fashionable at the time. I like to think so.
Happy to report I probably will be dead by then.
Sad to say, I will probably be dead by then.
Nope I won't be dead. I think it will happen sooner than you think and in ways that have not yet been explored. I want to see what the future has planned.
While it is true that science occasionally jumps forward by leaps and bounds I think anyone’s crystal ball is likely cloudy on the time frame. Including mine of course. Perhaps I’m just channeling my grandfather. He was born the year the Wilbur brothers first flew. He went to his deathbed in 1989 convinced that the moon landing was fake.
Even if the odds are surpassingly small, there are an awful lot of planets out there. And the whole human race doesn’t need to make the move for the species to survive.
I think people with bold visions of the existing human population on Earth relocating in any significant numbers have been watching too much sci-fi. The whole speed-of-light thing would make anything more than "seeding" nearby systems basically impossible - they won't be sending giant Arks full of billions of humans. Probably more like robots and DNA and such to start. (And if you look at the current doubling period for human population, which is ~60 years, you couldn't find and settle extrasolar-system worlds fast enough to keep up with the seething mass of overbreeding humanity here.) (*)
If you and your family currently live on Earth, it is very much in your best interest to keep it a pleasant and welcoming planet. You won't be escaping anytime soon.
Now, our solar system itself has lots and lots of useful resources, but, they are "up there" and a bit tricky to access with our current technology. That is changing. Musk wants to "colonize" Mars, but I don't think we'll see Manhattan sprout up there anytime soon, given the difficulty of the task, and the problems with getting from here to there.
The Earth is very handy - among other things, it mostly shields us from the incredibly damaging radiation that sleets through our solar system. If you are outside its protection, things are troublesome.
(*) Note that with basically existing technology, humans are quite capable of completely colonizing the entire Milky Way galaxy in a relatively short period of time, spreading like a cancer.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/294051-scientists-simulate-human-colonization-of-the-milky-way
Ha, Richard Branson is moving up his launch date, so he can beat Bezos into space.
https://www.tmz.com/2021/06/11/virgin-richard-branson-amazon-jeff-bezos-race-space/
happystuff
6-12-21, 11:10am
I think people with bold visions of the existing human population on Earth relocating in any significant numbers have been watching too much sci-fi.
To some degree... this would be me. >8) :laff:
Seriously, though, I think there are planets out there viable for human life, just not sure the current occupants would want us to join them considering our track record on this planet.
To some degree... this would be me. >8) :laff:
Seriously, though, I think there are planets out there viable for human life, just not sure the current occupants would want us to join them considering our track record on this planet.
Unless they were interested in fresh slaves or a food source. We seem to spread mayhem wherever we go, so planetary brothers, beware.
happystuff
6-12-21, 11:41am
Unless they were interested in fresh slaves or a food source. We seem to spread mayhem wherever we go, so planetary brothers, beware.
Made me think of the Twilight Zone episode - "To Serve Man". :D
For those concerned about survival of the species in the possibility of an extinction event or conditions, going underground seems more practical than settling on a distant planet. I suspect there are plenty of deep abandoned mines that could be expanded into self sufficient small cities. It seemed to work in The Time Machine, although there were some unpleasant side effects.
I think for Bezos it's an ego thing more than anything practical.
For those concerned about survival of the species in the possibility of an extinction event or conditions, going underground seems more practical than settling on a distant planet. I suspect there are plenty of deep abandoned mines that could be expanded into self sufficient small cities. It seemed to work in The Time Machine, although there were some unpleasant side effects.
I think for Bezos it's an ego thing more than anything practical.
"To serve man," indeed!
Going underground to survive has been a pretty popular alternative, if the number of existing cities is any clue.
I see Elizabeth Warren is claiming that “we are all paying” for Bezos’ trip because we don’t tax unrealized gains. She cited the information leaked by the IRS to Pro Publica, who published it along with a smugly self-righteous statement about the importance of violating privacy when some journalist decides it’s in the public good. I think her outrage allocation algorithm may be a bit unbalanced. I remember her talking about breaking up Amazon so they could no longer make snotty tweets about US senators.
ToomuchStuff
6-12-21, 2:38pm
"To serve man," indeed!
Going underground to survive has been a pretty popular alternative, if the number of existing cities is any clue.
Not sure how going underground is going to help with a global cataclysm.
For those concerned about survival of the species in the possibility of an extinction event or conditions, going underground seems more practical than settling on a distant planet. I suspect there are plenty of deep abandoned mines that could be expanded into self sufficient small cities. It seemed to work in The Time Machine, although there were some unpleasant side effects.
I think for Bezos it's an ego thing more than anything practical.
We could provide the Eloi with a universal basic income until it was time to eat them.
I see Richard Branson is hoping to make an attempt on the eleventh.
It is just another version of boys with their toys, IMHO. Humungous yachts no longer suffice or satisfy the egos. Too many of the boys have them now.
It is just another version of boys with their toys, IMHO. Humungous yachts no longer suffice or satisfy the egos. Too many of the boys have them now.
Many great advances are driven by ego and the urge to be first. If these guys help along the commercial exploitation of the solar system, I wish them godspeed.
Meanwhile bezos’ ex continues to donate money to causes she thinks matter.
Meanwhile bezos’ ex continues to donate money to causes she thinks matter.
As does Bezos, in even larger amounts.
https://www.geekwire.com/2021/jeff-bezos-mackenzie-scott-lead-list-top-philanthropists-u-s-2020/
Looks like Branson has won the billionaire space race.
catherine
7-11-21, 11:58am
Looks like Branson has won the billionaire space race.
Boy, Bezos is NOT having a good day.
I see Elizabeth Warren is going after Bezos again, saying that if he can afford to launch himself into space he can afford to “pitch in more”. It really seems to stick in her craw that a guy can legally accumulate enough capital to create a company that can transport people into space.
Personally, I think that will ultimately benefit society more than any use Warren could come up with for Bezos’ money. But even if it doesn’t, I think what he does with it is his business and nobody else’s.
Most of us have contributed to Bezos' wealth by buying products and services from amazon which has gobbled up other companies like guppies. We are complicit. I canceled my account some time ago. Today, I was perusing the website since I hadn't looked at it in a while. Just about everything is now cheap Chinese crap that we continue to buy. Containers full of it (when the ships can make it here). I wish he would use his vast wealth here on Earth rather than for space conquest. Perhaps all the billionaires will be able to escape the mess left behind here.
ApatheticNoMore
7-26-21, 4:00pm
Most of us have contributed to Bezos' wealth by buying products and services from amazon which has gobbled up other companies like guppies.
They had a structural advantage for years and years of not having to pay sales taxes, as did some other online retailers I suppose. That might have something to do with it. Do people forget that already? That when brick and mortars had to charge sale taxes and Amazon didn't there was an obvious savings for the consumer there.
Today, I was perusing the website since I hadn't looked at in a while. Just about everything is now cheap Chinese crap that we continue to buy.
Yes, a real decline in quality. It used to be possible to get stuff on Amazon that was better than in big box stores because the big box stores had all gone the cheap Chinese crap route. But now it's entirely on that bandwagon too of course. I mean maybe that is all that is produced now. And I suppose it might be "possible" to buy better stuff on Amazon, but it won't come up in a search of Amazon so you will never find it, so it's not realistically possible.
Perhaps all the billionaires will be able to escape the mess left behind here.
they won't though, I don't know why that myth has such currency, but the science is just not that advanced.
The mining asteroids or whatever planet talk seems scarcely better. I don't know what resources asteroids or whatever may or may not have. But if they are brought to earth it is introducing material in earth that is not part of the biosphere (like carbon that was stored in the ground sure), so the question becomes can the biosphere process and clear it adequately, it is non-toxic in any amount etc.? The only thing that might in theory make sense is disposing nuclear waste off earth in an nuclear powered society. Maybe, I don't know, science fiction.
I could find some issues with Bezos and how he spends his money, as well as a system that allows a single individual to have so much money. Historically speaking, I don't see that he is out of line with other mega wealthy with their yachts, railroads, golf courses, or such.
But my view of Amazon as a business filling customer demand is general positive. Box stores and mega chains ended the most of the Mom and Pop retailers before Amazon came around. It's pretty much buyer beware for cheap Chinese junk. They supply name brands and quality products as well, as opposed to say, Walmart. They've made life simpler for me to avoid driving around to find something a little rare, during the pandemic I've saved trips to stores, and I can imagine it's been a huge boon to people in more rural areas with limited local shopping.
I personally see these flights as achievements to be celebrated rather than sneered at by the envious or the people who think they have some sort of right to what others have earned. These guys built major businesses and then assembled the expertise to solve the engineering problems associated with commercial space flight. All on their own dime. If all a pinched and withered soul like Sen Warren gets from that is “we need to tax him more” and tear him down a bit, then I pity her.
People used to cheer for guys like Lindbergh. I wonder what happened to us?
ApatheticNoMore
7-27-21, 1:03pm
People used to cheer for guys like Lindbergh. I wonder what happened to us?
People cheer plenty for stuff they actually care about. People may hate big pharma, but they still cheer the vaccines (ok some little pharma and some big pharma to bring it to market and some massive government investment to make vaccine development economically viable at all, but people cheer stuff when it's actually making things better).
As for debased souls: I don't know what weird alienated souls we are supposed to be anyway, cheering private space travel, but not grieving the destruction of planet earth. What bizarre automaton humans are we supposed to be anyway? And one can't not grieve the destruction of the natural world they have known these days. It's inescapable. Asking us not to feel anything about that but be excited about a private space flight to nowhere, no hourly wage is high enough for that type of emotional labor.
I don't know what weird alienated souls we are supposed to be anyway, cheering private space travel, but not grieving the destruction of planet earth.
+100. Thank you.
I sometimes think we became alienated when we left the proverbial Garden of Eden. In the present context, I don't blame Jeff Bezos for wanting to ditch planet Earth just because he has the money to do it and he sees that earth is like the Staten Island landfill with no end in sight. It's his money, and this culture has determined that if you have money, it's yours to do what you please with it. It's that culture that I question the values of... a culture not solely defined by the US, but which goes back to Martin Luther and the work ethic that spawned capitalism.
As for debased souls: I don't know what weird alienated souls we are supposed to be anyway, cheering private space travel, but not grieving the destruction of planet earth. What bizarre automaton humans are we supposed to be anyway? And one can't not grieve the destruction of the natural world they have known these days. It's inescapable. Asking us not to feel anything about that but be excited about a private space flight to nowhere, no hourly wage is high enough for that type of emotional labor.
I think excellence and achievement are worth celebrating in any circumstances, and that surrendering to despair is not. I think these flights to nowhere will lead to great things.
I also suspect that when the problems presented by climate change are eventually dealt with, it will done by guys like Bezos and Branson rather than through the interminable whining of people like Greta Thunberg or Elizabeth Warren.
Excellence and achievement are worth celebrating.
Those who wish to improve our circumstances and work to achieve those ends are, by definition, not "in despair." Were our Founding Fathers "in despair" when they shook off the shackles of Great Britain? Was MLK "in despair" while "whining" about the plight of the Blacks in America?
The problems presented by climate change will be solved one way or the other. The devil is in the details. Some think technology can solve our problems, and some think the problem IS that some think that technology can solve the problems. Those people are the ones that actually appreciate elephants with ivory tusks and sharks with fins, and soil that doesn't have to be created in a chemical lab.
ETA: this article from the NYTimes (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/27/opinion/us-founding-fathers-constitution.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage) that says that Jefferson, Washington, and Hamilton "whined" about the future of America, too.
ApatheticNoMore
7-27-21, 2:44pm
The problems presented by climate change will be solved one way or the other. The devil is in the details.
or they won't be dealt with until billions of people die first, or humans become extinct, that's also perfectly possible. If it was "dealt with by Bezo's" or "dealt with by Branson" (tm) (theoretically if they invested in such, I mean as far as I know no such thing is even going on and so I'm not sure why I should give them credit for something that isn't happening, so .... theoretically), it absolutely of course would not be solved by Bezo's or Banson but by their employees.
And I'd still bet on it being dealt with by China first in that case anyway because of the remarkable technical feats they are capable of and the motive to do so (but they might do so for more for their good than the collective good of the planet alas, and of course so would Bezo's). Cities of millions in China have entirely electrified bus fleets with 1000s of electric busses added weekly, hospitals are built for covid in days etc..
or they won't be solved until billions of people die first,
That's just one of the details.
Or the fact that being in space (weightlessness) is very hard on Earthling's bodies. They weren't designed to live there, ie invasive species.
The world needs diverse efforts from resourceful as well as having the resources to explore ways to move ahead on climate change and all the other challenges in our lives.
Very partial list of American whiners:
George Washington
Benjamin Franklin
John Adams
Alexander Hamilton
John Hancock
Booker T. Washington
Harriet Tubman
Abraham Lincoln
John Brown
Susan B. Anthony
Gloria Steinem
Betty Friedan
Eleanor Roosevelt
Angela Davis
Martin Luther King, Jr.
James Baldwin
Medgar Evars
Langston Hughes
Ralph Abernathy
Audra Lorde
Bobby Seale
Soujourner Truth
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Angela Davis
Barbara Walters
Maya Angelou
Rosa Parks
Lady Gaga
Harvey Milk
Marsha Johnson
Ryan White
Ellen Degeneres
Gilbert Baker
Rachel Carson
Julia Butterfly Hill
Wendell Berry
Winona LaDuke
Marjorie Stoneman Douglas
John Muir
Thoreau
Peace Pilgrim
Helen & Scott Nearing
Edward Abbey
W.E.B. DuBois
Jacob Riis
John Lewis
So many whiners! I wish they had shut up already!
If you have an annoying whiner you'd like to add to the list, please do! We have to be sure these whiners don't upset the status quo!
Yeah--the best of us have never been stodgily content with the status quo.
I've read many scathing takes on Bezos, his eye-poppingly expensive jaunt to "almost space," and his plans to take pollution elsewhere. I suppose this kind of thing is inevitable, but there's so much to do here...
iris lilies
7-28-21, 2:40pm
I find the idea of living in space for any length of time and with any sizable population to be preposterous.
I saw a sci-fi movie once where wealthy folks booked flights on a traveling spacecraft that was more like a cruise ship. Yoga classes, spa services, gourmet meals etc. And then the ship was not able to re-enter for some reason and was destined to circle infinitely with no possible return. Not a pleasant thought.
I agree with the t-shirt that says just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Given time and the freedom to try, I see no reason why we can’t exploit near space on an industrial scale and eventually construct habitats or even engineer solar systems to suit our needs and whims. The sooner the entrepreneurs get out there, the better.
People used to say man would never fly. I look forward to the day the carping classes complain about “Big Space”.
iris lilies
7-29-21, 11:06am
I agree with the t-shirt that says just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Given time and the freedom to try, I see no reason why we can’t exploit near space on an industrial scale and eventually construct habitats or even engineer solar systems to suit our needs and whims. The sooner the entrepreneurs get out there, the better.
People used to say man would never fly. I look forward to the day the carping classes complain about “Big Space”.
I guess I think of living in space as a prison. Why would anybody want to do that? Granted I suppose some people would want to, but I can’t imagine living that way or even wanting to live that way. To never be outside and feel the breeze on your face, to never walk on grass among your garden flowers? Let alone, to never experience the wider wonders of earth.
Pugh.
Fortunately this is something I don’t have to worry about because it will never come in my lifetime. Sure it’s something that may come generations down the road.
catherine
7-29-21, 11:14am
I agree with the t-shirt that says just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Given time and the freedom to try, I see no reason why we can’t exploit near space on an industrial scale and eventually construct habitats or even engineer solar systems to suit our needs and whims. The sooner the entrepreneurs get out there, the better.
People used to say man would never fly. I look forward to the day the carping classes complain about “Big Space”.
I would imagine that after many years... like millions?... humans would go from being Homo Sapien to Homo Universalis or something like that. Nature (at least on earth) adapts. We would probably throw off the shackles of space suits and adapt to whatever chemical soup we found ourselves in. Our appendages would shrink or grow depending upon our needs. We may look like some of the sci-fi renditions we've seen, or something completely different. And maybe this new version of human would retain the tribalism from their forebears on Earth and come back to Earth to dominate and recolonize.
But I'm with Iris.. As long as the Earth doesn't become a polluted, de-nuded, monoculture dung heap before I'm dead, I'll be happy.
Just for the record, LDAHL, I am all for vision. We need more of it. I have no issue with space exploration--and the fact that JFK in 1963 pronounced a moon landing before the end of the decade and it was accomplished is a real testament to achievement. It should be a lesson for anybody who wishes to "reach for the stars" to achieve any worthwhile goal.
I agree with the t-shirt that says just because you can’t imagine it doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Given time and the freedom to try, I see no reason why we can’t exploit near space on an industrial scale and eventually construct habitats or even engineer solar systems to suit our needs and whims. The sooner the entrepreneurs get out there, the better.
People used to say man would never fly. I look forward to the day the carping classes complain about “Big Space”.
I suppose you’re right. Some people are working overtime to destroy this planet. Why wouldn’t they want to branch out and destroy the resort of the solar system too?
I suppose you’re right. Some people are working overtime to destroy this planet. Why wouldn’t they want to branch out and destroy the resort of the solar system too?
The way I see it, you can squander a lifetime wringing your hands over the latest fashions in doomsday, or you can enjoy and applaud the advances being made with more gratitude than envy. You can blame your favorite industrial villain (while being part of their customer base), or you can look with some justifiable hope for the technological solutions. I think my way of thinking is both more realistic and more fun. And even if I’m wrong, I’ll be no worse off than the despairing camp.
or you can look with some justifiable hope for the technological solutions. I think my way of thinking is both more realistic and more fun. And even if I’m wrong, I’ll be no worse off than the despairing camp.
Just for the record, I'm not interested in technological solutions.
ApatheticNoMore
7-29-21, 8:31pm
I'm not interested in the whole thing, but I feel we are forced to pretend be interested in a Tik Tok influencer's dance moves, or Bezo's space flight, same same. why. And actually the dance moves are probably more interesting if I was forced to be interested in them.
And this isn't even a discussion of technological solutions. What real technological solutions have been proposed. None. I mean to discuss technological solutions we'd have to actually discuss some. All live in space now? That is not a real solution, it won't work.
Just for the record, I'm not interested in technological solutions.
So, um, have you ever had antibiotics, a vaccination, safe drinking water, or food grown more than a few miles from your home?
catherine
7-29-21, 11:04pm
So, um, have you ever had antibiotics, a vaccination, safe drinking water, or food grown more than a few miles from your home?
I'm not saying I don't believe in technological solutions for everything. I don't believe that all of our environmental problems can or should be solved with technology--making "impossible burgers" of natural things that we used to take for granted, like clean water, biodiversity and a working ecosystem.
I believe in appropriate use of technology, and I think that depending upon technology to replace things that no longer exist because we caused their demise would be a shame. Technological solutions gave us the Dust Bowl, monocultures, DDT, species extinction, and solar farms in place of trees.
I am grateful for technology that provides us with the ability for me to post this, and for the medical advances that reduce suffering, but I don't want a "Fake Plastic Trees" kind of world.
I'm not interested in the whole thing, but I feel we are forced to pretend be interested in a Tik Tok influencer's dance moves, or Bezo's space flight, same same. why. And actually the dance moves are probably more interesting if I was forced to be interested in them.
Forced by who? And for what purpose?
Just for the record, I'm not interested in technological solutions.
I think climate change is essentially a technical problem that can eventually be solved mainly through technology. I don’t see the sort of proposals for rationing and regimentation being made by the private jet class as all that viable in practical terms. Our best hope are the engineers, not the social engineers.
catherine
7-30-21, 10:29am
I think climate change is essentially a technical problem that can eventually be solved mainly through technology. I don’t see the sort of proposals for rationing and regimentation being made by the private jet class as all that viable in practical terms. Our best hope are the engineers, not the social engineers.
Climate change is a technological problem only insofar as humans have unleashed dangerous technologies that have caused climate change.
And IMHO, climate change is only the proverbial canary in the coal mine--a symptom of the root cause of at least a century or more of anthropocentric values and practices that "benefit" humans (and only some humans at that) at the expense of other living things on the planet.
My hope is that someday humans view the entire natural world with the same respect and awe for its wonder as they do for their own self-centered interests. Human activity has caused an imbalance in the web of life to the detriment of all of us. I don't think that's up for debate. What's up for debate is between those who think we can just paint over the damage with technology vs those who would like to see us all recognize the intrinsic value of all living things and behave accordingly.
I don't expect you to agree, LDAHL. You certainly don't stand alone in your opinion, but this is mine.
My hope is that someday humans view the entire natural world with the same respect and awe for its wonder as they do for their own self-centered interests.
I think you’ve got at least a billion years of evolution working against you there. Hoping that people will subordinate their children’s interests to switchgrass and jellyfish seems less realistic than hoping for carbon capture on an industrial scale.
We humans believe we can control Ma Nature. I guess we'll see how that works out.
I think climate change is essentially a technical problem that can eventually be solved mainly through technology. I don’t see the sort of proposals for rationing and regimentation being made by the private jet class as all that viable in practical terms. Our best hope are the engineers, not the social engineers.
What are these proposals for rationing and regimentation?
ApatheticNoMore
7-30-21, 11:56am
I think billions of people will die from climate change related disasters before any technological solutions are implemented if they ever are. Solutions might be implemented on a narrow scale, China might try to steal India's rain or whatever. That's a form of geoengineering too, but seeding clouds and so on is not new, and I don't think that type of stuff is the global solution people might be fantasizing about, but it's the first we are likely to actually see implemented.
I don't think caring about the natural world is anti-evolution. I think that's absurd. Most people might even care a great deal, you think people want their children to grow up in a world without jellyfish, or strike that a world without fish at all, when they may remember all that from their own childhood, and they grieve the losses for themselves too. Until pretty soon one is arguing it's anti-evolution to care about the planet we evolved on and evolved to sense intimately, but not anti-evolution at all to expect to adapt to living in zero gravity where the outside air will kill one. It's not evolution, but we've got collective action problems and a society built on carbon use.
I might as well claim that CARBON CAPTURE IS ANTI-EVOLUTION because it is more likely to lead to grift than actual capture. Oh I absolutely think it is more likely to lead to financial grift in the present situation than much actual reduction of carbon, think collateralized debt obligations of carbon, as you see the financialization of capture without much underlying carbon reduction going on if any. But I don't make the point it's anti-evolution, because really, that's very broad. But we have collective action problems the same as with climate change to begin with, it's in the interest of the planet to capture carbon were that even possible, but is it in the interest of any single country. And in the u.s. we also have a society that has become increasingly corrupt (but many countries have always been corrupt - corruption being about the functioning of government and other institutions). And stuff like that is a potential grift bonanza. So yea, in the long term, I don't know ultimately, but in the short term expect grifting.
I think you’ve got at least a billion years of evolution working against you there. Hoping that people will subordinate their children’s interests to switchgrass and jellyfish seems less realistic than hoping for carbon capture on an industrial scale.
First of all, you don't have to really subordinate our children's interests to respect for nature at all. What is really in the children's best interest is health and happiness--and, truly, you can give children both without plundering the planet and raising carbon levels.
Second, your disparaging dismissal of jellyfish and switchgrass tells me that you are missing the point that the world fits together like a jigsaw puzzle or a house of cards, and eliminating too much of what fits neatly into the web of life will certainly compromise your children's hopes for health and happiness.
About jellyfish (https://www.discoverwildlife.com/news/jellyfish-beneficial-to-marine-life/)
Scientists at Queen's University, Belfast, have discovered that jellyfish are providing habitat and space for developing larval and juvenile fish. The fish use their jellyfish hosts as means of protection from predators and for feeding opportunities, helping to reduce fish mortality and increase recruitment.
About switchgrass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panicum_virgatum)
Wildlife: Switchgrass provides excellent nesting and fall and winter cover for pheasants, quail, and rabbits. It holds up well in heavy snow (particularly 'Shelter' and 'Kanlow' cultivars) and is useful on shooting preserves. The seeds provide food for pheasants, quail, turkeys, doves, and songbirds.
Energy: Switchgrass yields more than 540 percent more energy than the energy needed to produce and convert it to ethanol, making the grassy weed a far superior source for biofuels than corn ethanol, reports a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
Well said, Catherine. They don't call it "the web of life" for nothing.
ApatheticNoMore
7-31-21, 12:44pm
There is a term for the idea that humans are innately drawn to nature (by dah dah dum evolution): biophilia. I read that book years ago (probably The Biophilia Hypothesis ).
https://www.britannica.com/science/biophilia-hypothesis
I don't think it's that much use to debate this stuff as I don't think it does anything but go down the rabbit hole, no it's innate, no it's learned, no it's innate, no it's learned, round and round. But the idea that our feelings and attachments and drives, which may be innate, must be limited to the ONLY thing you are allowed to care about is your children's survival is pretty extremely limiting. A strong emotional involvement with the natural world is mostly pretty rational as well.
As for debased souls: I don't know what weird alienated souls we are supposed to be anyway, cheering private space travel, but not grieving the destruction of planet earth. What bizarre automaton humans are we supposed to be anyway? And one can't not grieve the destruction of the natural world they have known these days. It's inescapable. Asking us not to feel anything about that but be excited about a private space flight to nowhere, no hourly wage is high enough for that type of emotional labor.
I think this is beautifully expressed. You may go too far when you say we are asked "not to feel anything about" the "destruction of the natural world," but you make me consider what effect it might have if we had something like a national or international day of mourning for the earth - a day other than Earth Day. A day dedicated to grieving. It might open our hearts and focus our minds on what we collectively need to do/stop doing.
happystuff
7-31-21, 9:58pm
I think this is beautifully expressed. You may go too far when you say we are asked "not to feel anything about" the "destruction of the natural world," but you make me consider what effect it might have if we had something like a national or international day of mourning for the earth - a day other than Earth Day. A day dedicated to grieving. It might open our hearts and focus our minds on what we collectively need to do/stop doing.
We- human beings - have a hard time being compassionate to each other, let alone the planet and life there-on. I would LOVE if opening our hearts and focusing our minds on what we collectively need to do/stop doing would actually happen! But even now with COVID and the behaviors currently being displayed by some people, I really doubt that a day of mourning would result in much - and I'm an optimist!
We- human beings - have a hard time being compassionate to each other, let alone the planet and life there-on. I would LOVE if opening our hearts and focusing our minds on what we collectively need to do/stop doing would actually happen! But even now with COVID and the behaviors currently being displayed by some people, I really doubt that a day of mourning would result in much - and I'm an optimist!
I think you are right. While it may feel good to talk about it, the chances of some great global environmental awakening seem extremely remote to me. I’ll put my money on eccentric billionaires before that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.