Philosophy Discussion Forums

I always wonder why people feel better technology is the solution to global warming when technology is causing global warming in the first place. I would think less technology would be better on the environment. Look at the Amish. Those guys are better environmentalists than anybody today, and they don't even try to be. They don't pile up huge mountains of litter or cause any pollution.

I think if we really care about the health of the planet, we'll forget gimmicks like carbon credits and solar power, and just be more like the Amish. True, we might live in less comfort and may not live as long, but we'll definitely be more likely to ensure the future health of the planet.

Your cure presupposes that humans can radically alter their societies to accommodate a value that remains abstract to the general population (namely, "the health of the planet"). There is no historical evidence for any such ability except in highly localized situations. Local solutions are of no value in reversing global warming, so I'd say your cure is also of no value. A global social crisis is first needed to radically alter societies on a global scale. And by then, of course, it will be too late.

Theboombody wrote:I always wonder why people feel better technology is the solution to global warming when technology is causing global warming in the first place. I would think less technology would be better on the environment. Look at the Amish. Those guys are better environmentalists than anybody today, and they don't even try to be. They don't pile up huge mountains of litter or cause any pollution.

I think if we really care about the health of the planet, we'll forget gimmicks like carbon credits and solar power, and just be more like the Amish. True, we might live in less comfort and may not live as long, but we'll definitely be more likely to ensure the future health of the planet.

We should wreck our economy and die early? You first.

A Poster He or I wrote:Local solutions are of no value in reversing global warming, so I'd say your cure is also of no value.

So you're saying that the only reason better technology is pushed as the solution is because a more perfect solution is pretty much incomprehensible at this point? If we're at that stage already after 150 lousy years, then I'd say the planet is destined for doom. Does anyone really think better technology will be enough to stop the global warming that it caused? Even a 90% reduction in C02 emissions is still poisoning the planet, granted the poisoning is happening more slowly.

So my argument isn't so much that we should all turn Amish. My real argument is, why are we bothering to fight global warming if the only solution we have is a crummy one?

Deforestation due to agriculture is a magor contributor to global warming.So to is the production of rice crops. An increase in population has to be followed by increased global warming. We can't help ourselves. The only answer has to come from inventive technology.

Xris wrote:Deforestation due to agriculture is a magor contributor to global warming.So to is the production of rice crops. An increase in population has to be followed by increased global warming. We can't help ourselves. The only answer has to come from inventive technology.

Why must the only answer come from the idea of technology development (which again, I stress, is the very thing that got us global warming in the first place)? If a path was followed to create a problem, it's madness to assume that the same path should be followed to solve the problem, isn't it?

That being said, your comment does present a new alternative to cure the ills of global warming - reduction of population. I would assume this might happen on its own due to market forces, which I think I fear more than global warming itself.

Theboombody wrote:

Xris wrote:Deforestation due to agriculture is a magor contributor to global warming.So to is the production of rice crops. An increase in population has to be followed by increased global warming. We can't help ourselves. The only answer has to come from inventive technology.

Why must the only answer come from the idea of technology development (which again, I stress, is the very thing that got us global warming in the first place)? If a path was followed to create a problem, it's madness to assume that the same path should be followed to solve the problem, isn't it?

That being said, your comment does present a new alternative to cure the ills of global warming - reduction of population. I would assume this might happen on its own due to market forces, which I think I fear more than global warming itself.

To suggest we drastically reduce the world population is just as impossible as recommending we all go back to ploughing our back yards. We have gone too far to turn back the clock. It is only our desire to survive through technology that will save us. The earth will survive no matter what happens to us.

So you're saying that the only reason better technology is pushed as the solution is because a more perfect solution is pretty much incomprehensible at this point?

Technology is pushed as the solution because it is good marketing for the technology companies to do so. Any claim of being able to reverse global warming is disingenuous; the real motive is money.

A more perfect solution is not incomprehensible, just completely impractical.

If we're at that stage already after 150 lousy years, then I'd say the planet is destined for doom.

The planet will adapt just fine to a new biosphere, as it has many times in the geological record. Humans simply may not be a part of the new picture. If they are, it will be a greatly reduced population with new survival skills bred by reduced resources and the violence of massive social collapse.

Does anyone really think better technology will be enough to stop the global warming that it caused? Even a 90% reduction in C02 emissions is still poisoning the planet, granted the poisoning is happening more slowly.

I know a few people who do think the issue can be addressed by technology but they are uable to explain to me how in any coherent fashion.

So my argument isn't so much that we should all turn Amish. My real argument is, why are we bothering to fight global warming if the only solution we have is a crummy one?

Even the Amish are going to suffer when their crops fail and wells dry up. The actual "solution" to global warming is long-term adaptation, something that could possibly be set in motion over the course of several generations, either in a proactive way by educational initiatives, or more likely in a reactive way after massive social violence.

Theboombody wrote:I always wonder why people feel better technology is the solution to global warming when technology is causing global warming in the first place. I would think less technology would be better on the environment. Look at the Amish. Those guys are better environmentalists than anybody today, and they don't even try to be. They don't pile up huge mountains of litter or cause any pollution.

I think if we really care about the health of the planet, we'll forget gimmicks like carbon credits and solar power, and just be more like the Amish. True, we might live in less comfort and may not live as long, but we'll definitely be more likely to ensure the future health of the planet.

I think the Amish way of life would not work outside of anything but small farming communities. The way they life is deliberately unambitious.

Theophane wrote:

Theboombody wrote:I always wonder why people feel better technology is the solution to global warming when technology is causing global warming in the first place. I would think less technology would be better on the environment. Look at the Amish. Those guys are better environmentalists than anybody today, and they don't even try to be. They don't pile up huge mountains of litter or cause any pollution.

I think if we really care about the health of the planet, we'll forget gimmicks like carbon credits and solar power, and just be more like the Amish. True, we might live in less comfort and may not live as long, but we'll definitely be more likely to ensure the future health of the planet.

I think the Amish way of life would not work outside of anything but small farming communities. The way they life is deliberately unambitious.

I don't dispute that. I can foresee if we are unwilling to take ourselves backwards though, then environmental conditions might end up forcing us to go backwards.

Plus there ain't anything wrong with being unambitious. In some ways that's very good.

The human population has already precluded most of us living like the Amish. China and India were already having famines long before capitalism and technology raised their respective heads. The lower the level of technology the more land it takes to support a human reproduction facility. All animals, and humans included, must exaust their resources before they will reduce their numbers. Predation is the natural method, but humans tend to prefer war to limit their numbers in order to bring the numbers in line with resources. Naturally there is a lot of room for opinion on what amount of resources is necessary. This is really the basic reason for wars, despite the reasons often given by our preachers and politicians. Population control is paramount, if we were dealing with an intelligent species. I suspect that no species can act intelligently despite its members having some intelligence.

Theboombody wrote:I always wonder why people feel better technology is the solution to global warming when technology is causing global warming in the first place. I would think less technology would be better on the environment. Look at the Amish. Those guys are better environmentalists than anybody today, and they don't even try to be. They don't pile up huge mountains of litter or cause any pollution.

I think if we really care about the health of the planet, we'll forget gimmicks like carbon credits and solar power, and just be more like the Amish. True, we might live in less comfort and may not live as long, but we'll definitely be more likely to ensure the future health of the planet.

You have made the false assumption that there is global warming in the first place. Global warming is just a ruling class deception to get the masses to forgo their current lifestyle and to pay more unnecessary taxes. The Northern hemisphere is currently going through its coldest period in hundreds of years and the global average hasn't changed one iota in the last 17 years.

I see you are still spreading your misinformation.Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

DarwinX wrote:
You have made the false assumption that there is global warming in the first place. Global warming is just a ruling class deception to get the masses to forgo their current lifestyle and to pay more unnecessary taxes. The Northern hemisphere is currently going through its coldest period in hundreds of years and the global average hasn't changed one iota in the last 17 years.

I tend to agree with you. It has also made people like Gore filthy rich and able to burn any light bulb he wishes in as many homes as he wishes, etc..

Misty wrote:

DarwinX wrote:
You have made the false assumption that there is global warming in the first place. Global warming is just a ruling class deception to get the masses to forgo their current lifestyle and to pay more unnecessary taxes. The Northern hemisphere is currently going through its coldest period in hundreds of years and the global average hasn't changed one iota in the last 17 years.

I tend to agree with you. It has also made people like Gore filthy rich and able to burn any light bulb he wishes in as many homes as he wishes, etc..

What have you formed your opinion on Misty? Do understand the difference between weather and climate, Misty?