undefined

points

by plastic-enjoyer7 hours ago |

comments

by api7 hours ago|

[-]

I didn’t mean to come off as criticizing you, just providing a balancing counterpoint on some of the ideas.

The question is: can you give billions of people the “authentic” version?

In some cases you can. In the US at least there’s boutique groceries and farmers markets that sell more authentic organic food that usually does have better nutritional value. But it costs more.

The artificial mass market imitation is cheaper because it is thermodynamically cheaper. It takes far less labor (the most costly input to almost all processes) and it substitutes things that can be bulk produced at a lower unit cost. Being less nutritious probably directly correlates since nutrition is chemical complexity is lower entropy, higher energy, harder to scale.

There’s a lot of rare “authentic” experiences that cannot be scaled. That means most people can’t have them, ever.

You can’t have both rarity / exclusivity and democratization / equality. One side has to give.

by pluralmonad6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This is exactly what the article touches on, the race to the bottom. It drags everyone's experience down. This appeal to scalability is part of the problem, IMO. Not every experience is or should be scalable. Some kids find blackberry bushes at grandma's instead of strawberries. Little is gained by strip mining human experience so the thinnest veneer can be "scaled".

by brookst6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

But what do you do about free will? If billions of people want maple syrup, do you say “no, no, we can’t scale the real thing and corn syrup is a poor substitute, so you can’t have even a simulacrum of the experience”?

by api6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

That means most people can never have it, which is why romanticism ends up pining for aristocracy.

by eszed5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I take your point, but the other argument against scaling in this way doesn't rely on sentiment: it's unsustainable. I actually hate that word, but the point is that current production methods create (unpriced) environmental externalities. We're draining aquifers, exhausting topsoil, pouring fertilizer into rivers, using too much petroleum - and then throwing a massive portion of what we produce away. (And that's just for food; similar arguments exist for fashion, and sometimes for buildings and infrastructure.) That argument gets effectively zero traction - despite, I think, being the better one - so some people who care more about that argue from sentiment instead, which (for the reasons you explain, and rightly object to) has better legs with the general public.

by api5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I look at this as a technical problem. We just aren't very good at this yet. We are, in fact, slowly getting better. Renewable energy was the largest category of new installed energy for the last few years at least, and that's a start. The question is whether we can get good at this fast enough to outrun ourselves.

My issue with at least some of green ideology is that it's viewed as a moral problem. We are sinning by asking for more than we deserve and, if you really scratch the surface, by trying to give too much to the unwashed hordes. Beneath the surface I think you find romanticism, and beneath that you find nostalgia for a fantasy world that never really existed. That fantasy world is the fantasy of the old aristocracy. It's the story they told themselves.

I think those kinds of greens are "trads" who don't know it yet. The only thing keeping them from going down that road is an attachment to the idea of equality and things like LGBTQ rights. If you give up those things, the rest aligns perfectly. If you want a world of rare authentic things enjoyed by cultured people and all of it to fit within present techno/ecological limits, you have to put the masses back in feudal serfdom and establish a rigid, religious, traditional system to hold everything in stasis that way. It would be sustainable.

But as I said a few levels up, there is another side of the critique that I think has more legs. That's the critique of engineered addiction and manipulation. Those are not mandatory effects of scale. They're engineered to maximize short term profits or for other purposes like political manipulation, which I guess is another kind of profit (power rather than money).

by eszed2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Good points. I expect you're familiar with the Abundance Agenda folks? They're mostly talking right now about energy and infrastructure, which I think is a correct choice, but there is a next step to take with consumer goods, so that we can end up with an abundance of quality and not more engineered addiction.

by recursive-call4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

okay but most kids don’t find any kind of bushes. do they just not get to eat fruit?