A reductionist line of reasoning that we need to cull humanity to survive.
I invite the paper authors to be the first in line. There is a fine tradition of S.F. which explores this, back to the 50s if not before. There was a strong element of Erlich in the 1970s take on things, which Erlich/Simons did not entirely eradicate. I tend to think overshoot is a self-correcting problem and I also tend to think if we get back to a rational place about the extremes of wealth and poverty, there's a level of nutrition and housing above worst and below best which can work at scale.
The other thing is, we already know the overshoot correction is happening in the future, the 2nd order derivitive of population trends tells us we're declining in the future. People have less babies when their standard of living improves.
I am probably not making friends when I say I think their take on Solar and wind and batteries is crap. They're doom saying in a belief they're right. They don't fundamentally test the proposition they're wrong, or that a transition out from FF is both achievable and worthwhile.
Does nobody else around here think basic linear optimisation, operations research has just been forgotten? These people think absolutist proofs of 1 == 0 work to say 'we are doomed' and forget about all the evidence that increments now, plus future improvements, plus unexpected third benefits, plus the other thing actually ARE a basis for optimism. Had we written this in the 1970s we'd be talking about 10% efficiency in solar cells as the fundamental reason they can't work at scale and here we are at 26% and rising. We'd be saying there wasn't enough lead in the supply chain to make the lead acid batteries we need, and here we are with diverse battery chemistry at scale.
MDPI is a mediocre to shit journal. This is junk science.
I hear you, but don't have a good response right now. Why did I post a totally unreviewed article? I just think there's still a conversation worth having, in a different direction from the mainstream. Maybe this article isn't it, but hey, I accept the non upvotes :)
3 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 16.1 ms ] threadI invite the paper authors to be the first in line. There is a fine tradition of S.F. which explores this, back to the 50s if not before. There was a strong element of Erlich in the 1970s take on things, which Erlich/Simons did not entirely eradicate. I tend to think overshoot is a self-correcting problem and I also tend to think if we get back to a rational place about the extremes of wealth and poverty, there's a level of nutrition and housing above worst and below best which can work at scale.
The other thing is, we already know the overshoot correction is happening in the future, the 2nd order derivitive of population trends tells us we're declining in the future. People have less babies when their standard of living improves.
I am probably not making friends when I say I think their take on Solar and wind and batteries is crap. They're doom saying in a belief they're right. They don't fundamentally test the proposition they're wrong, or that a transition out from FF is both achievable and worthwhile.
Does nobody else around here think basic linear optimisation, operations research has just been forgotten? These people think absolutist proofs of 1 == 0 work to say 'we are doomed' and forget about all the evidence that increments now, plus future improvements, plus unexpected third benefits, plus the other thing actually ARE a basis for optimism. Had we written this in the 1970s we'd be talking about 10% efficiency in solar cells as the fundamental reason they can't work at scale and here we are at 26% and rising. We'd be saying there wasn't enough lead in the supply chain to make the lead acid batteries we need, and here we are with diverse battery chemistry at scale.
MDPI is a mediocre to shit journal. This is junk science.
Faith in HN to be the right thing I guess