It was a yes or no question.

Yes or no?

You will eat the bugs, you will live in a pod, you will only travel where permitted by the government, and you will be happy.

In the very long run, way beyond our lifespan, they probably will be proven right. But I was referring more to the stagnation of productivity and technological progress which has taken hold of the world for the past 20+ years. Stuff like faster computers, smartphones, social media, Netflix instead of linear TV, buying from Amazon instead of your local shop and all that only increases the efficiency of our lives at the margins, but it doesn't fundamentally change how much stuff we can produce per man hour or per unit of base resources. Medical treatments for many diseases have made huge progress, but it's counteracted by an ever-increasing pollution of our environment, processed food, sedentary lifestyles and so on. Humanity has more or less stagnated for two decades.


And social media was a mistake in general.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 7 2024 06:09pm

A big problem I have with these wacky people is that all of their arguments hinge on the flawed assumption that we (the Anglo-American Empire) will be in the approximately same state for tens of thousands of years (climate change, food production, etc. etc.)

Empires rise and fall under much shorter timescales. And like the Roman Empire before us, the Anglo-American Empire will fall long before any of their doomsday predictions come to pass.

Suburbs cannot continue to exist. They are a blight on cities and the most inefficient way to live.

Having a car that you use occasionally versus having multiple cars you drive every day. Important distinction. Rural people will still need cars but it's also a choice to live in a rural area.

The average person can also almost never travel. Skiing, mountaineering, are things for people with significantly above average incomes.

What I'm describing is a brutal truth. That we cannot live the same way we have in the past as there simply are not enough resources to do that forever. Remember the old adage? Reduce, reuse, recycle? They're in that order for a reason.

Like I said, we're going to go into it kicking and screaming, but it's not something we have a choice in. Thermodynamics doesn't care about our opinion.

Definitely outside our lifespan, but it is interesting to think about from time to time. The evolutionary track of humanity is increasingly technological and decreasingly biological.

Most of human progress is based on memetic instead of genetic evolution. Modern technology has only accelerated this trend.



Again: good luck telling suburbanites that their single- or double-family houses can no longer exist and they will have to cope with much smaller apartments in large apartment complexes.

I don't even necessarily disagree with you on the point that we're on an unsustainable course and racing toward a cliff. I just disagree with you on the conclusion drawn from this observation: I believe that mankind's problem with climate change/loss of biodiversity/waste of finite resources cannot be solved with the "sacrifice and restrictions"-approach preached by folks like Greta, nor would it be desirable. Imho, there are only two realistic options: big technological breakthroughs (plural, at this point, we will need multiple breakthroughs) within the next decades, or a drastic reduction of the human population. (Be it due to a WW3 or due to mass starvation.) The latter is obviously the least desirable outcome.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 7 2024 06:55pm

Where did i say any such thing?
Do you have some kind of schizophrenia?
Nvm just saw your interaction with thor, that confirmed it.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Jan 7 2024 08:14pm

What?

Did I say anything?

Are you hallucinating things there bud?

i agree but dont look into islam, there is no peace or any good behaviour