On the one hand, you’ve got people hand waving the feasibility of “magic eco solutions” like scalable carbon capture and “solar freaking roadways”, on the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got Smil, and the EVs-are-not-the-solution crowd who are, ironically, hand waving the feasibility of convincing people to suffer a little more now so we probably (?) won’t suffer more later.
I agree with the sentiment that the reality is somewhere between two extremes. But in failing to acknowledge the social problem around convincing people to intentionally suffer (because we’re stuck in a productivity arms race perpetuated by a little “eco-MAD” doctrine and some prisoner’s dilemma for good measure), puts Smile’s view itself in a bit of an “extremist” spot.
It doesn’t matter a lick of difference if 98% of everyone is a goody two-shoes and consumed “responsibly” if the other 2% is sweeping the problem under the rug unbeknownst to the 98%. 100% responsibility may be just as unfeasible as scalable carbon capture.
On the one hand, you’ve got people hand waving the feasibility of “magic eco solutions” like scalable carbon capture and “solar freaking roadways”, on the other end of the spectrum, you’ve got Smil, and the EVs-are-not-the-solution crowd who are, ironically, hand waving the feasibility of convincing people to suffer a little more now so we probably (?) won’t suffer more later.
I agree with the sentiment that the reality is somewhere between two extremes. But in failing to acknowledge the social problem around convincing people to intentionally suffer (because we’re stuck in a productivity arms race perpetuated by a little “eco-MAD” doctrine and some prisoner’s dilemma for good measure), puts Smile’s view itself in a bit of an “extremist” spot.
It doesn’t matter a lick of difference if 98% of everyone is a goody two-shoes and consumed “responsibly” if the other 2% is sweeping the problem under the rug unbeknownst to the 98%. 100% responsibility may be just as unfeasible as scalable carbon capture.