this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2025
57 points (100.0% liked)

ShowerThoughts

2362 readers
1 users here now

Sometimes we have those little epiphanies in the shower.. sometimes they come from other places. This is a home for those epiphanies.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Everybody knows what needs to be done. Parenthood needs to be sustainable for the parents. There's just no political will to implement a policy that will only start paying off in 20+ years. Every politician kicks the can down the road, or implements half-hearted policies.

Edit: Just realised I posted this to the wrong instance comm ๐Ÿ˜…

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (7 children)

Unsustainability is unsustainability. Does it matter if we run out in 100 years or 1000? The goal should be to go sustainable, and that is actually MORE likely to happen with a larger population base, as sustainable tech requires a higher tech base, and consequently a larger population base to support it.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (6 children)

It does matter, yes. How great are our odds of figuring out sustainability in 100 years vs 1000? And not just the tech. Also the politics and such.

Perhaps there is a balance. But right now I think we're on the too much side of things

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Human nature being what it is, we won't be making any progress on sustainability until it's staring us in the face and has become a survival issue. FFS, we KNEW about global warming and what coal-burning would do back in the 19th century, and what did we do on that front in the couple hundred years since? Literally speed up the process, until we hit survival-level issues.

Oh, forgot to mention previously - population inertia is a thing. While birthrates may have dropped precipitously, it takes a long time to reflect that in actual population figures. So much so that every scientist speaking on the issue takes pains to state that the reducing birthrate will not affect our current environmental woes. For better or worse, we're stuck with our current population size to figure out the environmental thing. The birthrate issue is not about the current catastrophe, but the upcoming one.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Did you miss nuclear and solar existing? China's investments? Heat pumps? We're not standing still on progress. It's just not enough

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Yeah. How much of that progress, as a result of sustainability focus, came about solely in the past 2 decades? You're proving my point, that we just don't do something about future problems until it's become a today problem.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Quite a bit, we have not been standing still. New salt based batteries have been announced recently. You're going to have to explain how this proves your point tho

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We can predict a disaster 2 centuries in advance, and yet accelerate the onset of the disaster until it's almost too late to avert it. What makes you think humanity would do anything useful if they had a thousand years? We'd just revert to our old behaviour because the urgency wasn't there any more.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

I think we might just have a better shot, or at least more time to adapt to a harsher climate. I'm not saying this is a guaranteed solution

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)