@Laurelai@witches.town Would like to see a comparable chart for other resource consumption. If it's similar, that would be very useful to know.

cc: @dredmorbius

@woozle @Laurelai@witches.town It almost certainly is. Energy and other resource consumption is very highly correlated. And energy is pretty much carbon sources (nukes are ~20%, hydro and all renewables ~5-8% or so, climbing slightly with wind and solar).

@dredmorbius (cc @Laurelai@witches.town )

So, how does this affect my contention on G+, back when, that we could live much less resource-intensively than we do without sacrificing much in the way of life-quality?

That is, if only a tiny fraction of us are enjoying a QoL sufficient to cause most of the resource depletion...

@woozle @dredmorbius @Laurelai If there were 500m - 2 billion of us, maybe.

At 7.3 - 11 billion, not a chance.

Even the very poorest people remain alive largely because we've made such levels of poverty /survivable/, through medical and emergency food "relief" -- the /minimum/ level of subsistence necessary for survival. That's a point in Gregory Clark's "A Farewell to Alms". See the intro:

press.princeton.edu/titles/846

worldcat.org/oclc/767762001

@dredmorbius @dredmorbius @Laurelai@witches.town

I think you're assuming that the chart must be inaccurate.

If poor people make use of a resource that itself requires a lot of resource investment, then that should be counted as consumed by them.

I think the upper end of that chart is talking more about things like private jets/yachts, golf courses, McMansions, multiple homes...

Charts which specifically divide expenditures into "productive" and "personal" would be more informative.

@woozle @Laurelai@witches.town @dredmorbius I'm not.

I'm looking at a long line of history and data on what it takes to survive, what traditional societies have had available to them, both in resources and in product, and what it takes to produce, provide, and maintain that.

It is very, very, very hard to impress on anyone the scope and scale of change from 1800 - present. Or that ~1920 is about a technological midpoint, and ~1965 a population midpoint. Or the accruing debt / risk of many forms.

@dredmorbius @dredmorbius @Laurelai@witches.town

Okay, but that wasn't your argument earlier, at least with regard to my question.

And I'm not even disagreeing with you.

But it's not important to sort this all out here; it's more of a long-form forum question.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Toot.Cat

A Mastodon instance for cats, the people who love them, and kindness in general. We strive to be a radically inclusive safe space. By creating an account, you agree to follow our CoC.