To save the climate we all have to be poor!!

[Nimos]

Instead of blaming profit, one could regulate products
such that they approach 100% recyclability. One could
even require longevity & maintainability standards.
We as consumers can also choose to buy durable rather
than throwaway goods. And we can use them longer
before tossing them.

All economic systems operate in an environment
created by society & government. Whether capitalist,
socialist, or communist, each country chooses its
goals & regulations. Not one is inherently more
responsible than they other.

Sure all products should aim towards being 100% recyclable. But still, I don't think it changes that things done with the aim of profit are done differently than something done with the aim of sustainability and efficiency. Because you have investors that you have to satisfy and they expect profit and growth, which often result in poor products, even in big companies.

And even if you as a consumer can choose to buy durable products, these are usually extremely expensive, which might be an issue for the lower income class, also it doesn't prevent all the non-durable products from being made. Because there is a market for it. If everyone had money to buy the best quality, then we would only have the best of the best quality all the others would go bankrupt. So I don't think that argument holds water, even if it sounds logical.

 

[Nimos]

One of the problems with waiting so long to address climate change in any meaningful way is that it will inevitably force us to change and adapt in ways we may not enjoy.

But people love kicking that climate change can.

My issue is simply that the poorest people are inside the can so to speak.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure all products should aim towards being 100% recyclable. But still, I don't think it changes that things done with the aim of profit are done differently than something done with the aim of sustainability and efficiency. Because you have investors that you have to satisfy and they expect profit and growth, which often result in poor products, even in big companies.

And even if you as a consumer can choose to buy durable products, these are usually extremely expensive, which might be an issue for the lower income class, also it doesn't prevent all the non-durable products from being made. Because there is a market for it. If everyone had money to buy the best quality, then we would only have the best of the best quality all the others would go bankrupt. So I don't think that argument holds water, even if it sounds logical.

You offer no alternative to companies making a profit.
But my approach, ie, useful regulation, has been proven
effective when applied, eg, auto safety standards,
consumer protection laws.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

My issue is simply that the poorest people are inside the can so to speak.

They are, yes. They are also already being impacted by climate change. I do agree that one of the things we have to focus on is large scale changes in our industry. And y'know, stop warring with each other. Taxing the rich more heavily to have a better flow of resources is going to be crucial for this.

 

[Nimos]

You offer no alternative to companies
making a profit. But my approach, ie,
useful regulation works when applied,
eg, auto safety standards.

Well, to offer a solution would be to redesign how the global economy works. I don't have the knowledge to do that. But I do think that humanity in the near future is going to have to deal with the issue of AI and robots.

Artificial intelligence allows UPS to fire 12,000 managers without ever having to rehire them. The company is also making other radical changes, such as requiring employees to be in the office five days a week. In order to become more efficient, UPS is laying off a significant number of its employees and replacing them with artificial intelligence.

This is just one example and I think this is a tendency that will continue in the next many years as more and more companies get AI integrated. And this is even before we have robots to replace people, which is the next thing in line. So eventually we have to do something, simply because the purchasing power in the population is not there, but im not an economist, so how they are going to solve it I have no clue. But even if we should stick to a profit-based economy, it requires that people have money. So unless you disagree that AI and robots are not going to impact societies, then the question is how are you going to keep the profit-based economy alive?

 

[Audie]

So in Denmark, the price of certain products has gone up because we have to save the climate. So for instance the price of ground/beef veal commonly eaten here has gone through the roof and almost doubled in the last 1 or 1.5 years, which makes it kind of absurd to buy now unless it's on a sale.

Obviously, this has resulted in people with low-income buying less of it, yet a study was made showing that people on the higher end buy 3 times as much beef as others.

What annoys me, is whenever politicians have to solve something, 99% of the time this means something has to cost more, that must be the number 1 way to solve issues today. What bothers me is that doing this always affects the poorest in the country and they are the ones ending up paying the price. Those with lots of money couldn't care less whether they have to pay more for these things anyway.

I'm a person who is in support of equality and believes that inequality is one of the key factors in why societies might fail. So these things bother me because they create indirect inequality. And it makes it feel like it is the poorest people on Earth that essentially have to pay for saving the climate with their living standard.

Do you have the same impression in the country you live it?

Nope

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, to offer a solution would be to redesign how the global economy works. I don't have the knowledge to do that. But I do think that humanity in the near future is going to have to deal with the issue of AI and robots.

Artificial intelligence allows UPS to fire 12,000 managers without ever having to rehire them. The company is also making other radical changes, such as requiring employees to be in the office five days a week. In order to become more efficient, UPS is laying off a significant number of its employees and replacing them with artificial intelligence.

This is just one example and I think this is a tendency that will continue in the next many years as more and more companies get AI integrated. And this is even before we have robots to replace people, which is the next thing in line. So eventually we have to do something, simply because the purchasing power in the population is not there, but im not an economist, so how they are going to solve it I have no clue. But even if we should stick to a profit-based economy, it requires that people have money. So unless you disagree that AI and robots are not going to impact societies, then the question is how are you going to keep the profit-based economy alive?

You worry too much.

 

[Nimos]

You worry too much.

Time will tell.

But do you think humans, in the near future or far future, can create robots and AI that are more capable/efficient than us? And if so, how do you see a profit-based economy work, who is going to buy products, and for what money?

And if so, at which point do you think we should start to worry about it? Because if everything goes as normal we will probably worry about it about as fast as with climate change, meaning way to late.

 

[Valjean]

Wow, if I understand your post, this is something we agree on! yikes!

The people who focus on ecological overshoot or just overshoot, agree that we need to stop making so many babies. The earth cannot sustain 8 billion people. We also know that one of the best ways to limit population growth is to educate women and girls in poor countries.

Here's a crazy idea: If a woman reaches menopause without having any kids, she should get a huge retirement bonus - like $500,000. And if she reaches menopause having had only one kid, she'd get $250,000.

Doesn't sound crazy to me. Financial and social incentives can have major effects.
Having a child/children is the most ecologically costly act most people ever do. Recycling, driving electric cars, giving up meat, &c. doesn't come close.

 

[Nimos]

Doesn't sound crazy to me. Financial and social incentives can have major effects.
Having a child/children is the most ecologically costly act most people ever do. Recycling, driving electric cars, giving up meat, &c. doesn't come close.

The only issue is that maybe the men should also get something?

On a more serious note, looking at the projection data, the world population is primarily increasing in Africa and falling or is pretty steady in the rest of the world. If we want to stop overpopulation we have to get Africa out of poverty.

Population growth per continent

 

[icehorse]

The only issue is that maybe the men should also get something?

On a more serious note, looking at the projection data, the world population is primarily increasing in Africa and falling or is pretty steady in the rest of the world. If we want to stop overpopulation we have to get Africa out of poverty.

Population growth per continent

Mostly agreed. But as others have pointed out, a child born in the US has a MUCH BIGGER environmental impact than a child born in Aftrica.

So I think we need to do population control more or less across the board.

 

[Nimos]

Mostly agreed. But as others have pointed out, a child born in the US has a MUCH BIGGER environmental impact than a child born in Aftrica.

So I think we need to do population control more or less across the board.

My point is, that based on the data. It shows that people in developed countries, especially those where women are educated get fewer children, which is why we have a decline in Europe and such a small increase in the US. Also, China is declining as they get richer as well. So there will be a natural stop to population growth.

But again, I think a lot of these things could be solved by using resources more sensible than now, even if we recycle, we still trash a lot of things.

Think about it the largest human "construction" in the world is a landfill in the US

 

[icehorse]

My point is, that based on the data. It shows that people in developed countries, especially those where women are educated get fewer children, which is why we have a decline in Europe and such a small increase in the US. Also, China is declining as they get richer as well. So there will be a natural stop to population growth.

But again, I think a lot of these things could be solved by using resources more sensible than now, even if we recycle, we still trash a lot of things.

Think about it the largest human "construction" in the world is a landfill in the US

There are many aspects of ecological overshoot that will be extremely hard for people to accept.

One of these things is that we need to not just stop population growth, we need to shrink the world's population substantially. Like maybe back down to a billion people.

So we need to find ways to accomplish that, that don't end up in total collapse and chaos

 

[Revoltingest]

Time will tell.

But do you think humans, in the near future or far future, can create robots and AI that are more capable/efficient than us? And if so, how do you see a profit-based economy work, who is going to buy products, and for what money?

Profit might be made by both humans & robots.
Socialists want profit too. They just don't call it that.
Things must be produced for more than they cost
in order to support roads, health care, vacations, etc.

And if so, at which point do you think we should start to worry about it? Because if everything goes as normal we will probably worry about it about as fast as with climate change, meaning way to late.

I see no need to worry.
Think.
There will be change.
Seek profit.
Cope with what happens.
Hope for the best.

 

[Nimos]

There are many aspects of ecological overshoot that will be extremely hard for people to accept.

One of these things is that we need to not just stop population growth, we need to shrink the world's population substantially. Like maybe back down to a billion people.

So we need to find ways to accomplish that, that don't end up in total collapse and chaos

Could do as China, they have had a one-child policy in a period of time. I don't know the details about how that was received by the Chinese population, but I don't get the impression that they saw it as a huge issue or that it led to a lot of "legal" children at least not that I have heard. But probably need to ask someone with more knowledge about that.

 

[Nimos]

Profit might be made by both humans & robots.
Socialists want profit too. They just don't call it that.
Things must be produced for more than they cost
in order to support roads, health care, vacations, etc.

I see no need to worry.
Think.
Cope with what happens.
Hope for the best.

Whether it is socialism or capitalism is irrelevant both are about profit, not sure why you single out socialism in this regard, it is not the solution. It is about purchasing power. Robots/AI don't buy food, don't travel (vacation at least), they don't need to buy anything. And the problem as I see it, is that it is going to happen in all areas at the same time. Because there is an insane focus on these things at the moment which we haven't seen before. Robots have always looked clunky and kind of useless so no one bothered with them, it was something of science fiction for most people I think. But given how many huge companies are actively working on it now, it means that the technology is going to come much faster.

This is Elon Musk:
Billionaire Elon Musk took to social media to express his agreement with a fellow tech leader’s prediction that there will be about 1 billion humanoid robots on Earth in two decades.

The Tesla Optimus, also known as Tesla Bot, was first announced at the company’s AI Day even in August 2021 when Musk said the company planned to build a prototype by the following year. He said of the robot at the time, "I think it has the potential to be more significant than the vehicle business over time."
"There’s still a lot of work to be done to refine Optimus," Musk said at the time. "I think Optimus is going to be incredible in five or 10 years."

As of 2022, Musk said he hoped to bring the robot to market in three to five years and that once ready it will be "an extremely capable" machine.

The intention with a lot of these robots is to serve as personal assistants for humans and also do whatever is needed at companies, and the estimated cost is around 20000$, so it is nothing for a company compared to hiring a person that needs a salary, vacation, etc. if it can do what is needed.

This is from Amazon website:
In 2022, 1 billion packages, or one-eighth of all the orders we delivered to customers worldwide, was sorted by Robin, one of Amazon’s robotic handling systems. We’ve become the world’s largest manufacturer of industrial robots and have deployed more than 750,000 mobile robots across our worldwide operations. It’s hard to believe how far we’ve come since the days of testing a few robots in a corner of one of our facilities.

From a business point of view, it makes sense, that if they can make a nearly fully automated system, they can save a lot of money. And just as with UPS, these companies are not unique in their approach this is where things are heading, it is simply the next "industrial" revolution we are looking at. Except before it was in certain limited areas which still required human interaction.

But it doesn't require a whole lot, when you have an AI more capable than any human in a humanoid body, to figure out who is going to be chosen.
You won't get rid of all humans at least not yet, but you don't need that either to create a catastrophe where politicians/we have to act. We all know how slow these political systems are and how inefficient this process is, so a few decades might not be enough, just look at the AI, it took them by storm and there are no serious regulations in place, it is a free for all at the moment. If his predictions are correct (he has been wrong many times before), then in the next few years we are going to see more and better robots getting developed, and a lot of these are not specialized in a certain task, but to solve many tasks.

And to me, this is going to happen the only question is how long it will take, these huge companies are not just playing around with billions of dollars just for fun, so we have to be prepared for the transition into a world where humans might be the worse employee you can hire.

 

[Revoltingest]

Whether it is socialism or capitalism is irrelevant both are about profit, not sure why you single out socialism in this regard, it is not the solution.

It commonly is in the eyes of people who dis profit.
So I post about it not just for you, but for other readers too.

It is about purchasing power. Robots/AI don't buy food, don't travel (vacation at least), they don't need to buy anything. And the problem as I see it, is that it is going to happen in all areas at the same time. Because there is an insane focus on these things at the moment which we haven't seen before. Robots have always looked clunky and kind of useless so no one bothered with them, it was something of science fiction for most people I think. But given how many huge companies are actively working on it now, it means that the technology is going to come much faster.

This is Elon Musk:
Billionaire Elon Musk took to social media to express his agreement with a fellow tech leader’s prediction that there will be about 1 billion humanoid robots on Earth in two decades.

The Tesla Optimus, also known as Tesla Bot, was first announced at the company’s AI Day even in August 2021 when Musk said the company planned to build a prototype by the following year. He said of the robot at the time, "I think it has the potential to be more significant than the vehicle business over time."
"There’s still a lot of work to be done to refine Optimus," Musk said at the time. "I think Optimus is going to be incredible in five or 10 years."

As of 2022, Musk said he hoped to bring the robot to market in three to five years and that once ready it will be "an extremely capable" machine.

The intention with a lot of these robots is to serve as personal assistants for humans and also do whatever is needed at companies, and the estimated cost is around 20000$, so it is nothing for a company compared to hiring a person that needs a salary, vacation, etc. if it can do what is needed.

This is from Amazon website:
In 2022, 1 billion packages, or one-eighth of all the orders we delivered to customers worldwide, was sorted by Robin, one of Amazon’s robotic handling systems. We’ve become the world’s largest manufacturer of industrial robots and have deployed more than 750,000 mobile robots across our worldwide operations. It’s hard to believe how far we’ve come since the days of testing a few robots in a corner of one of our facilities.

From a business point of view, it makes sense, that if they can make a nearly fully automated system, they can save a lot of money. And just as with UPS, these companies are not unique in their approach this is where things are heading, it is simply the next "industrial" revolution we are looking at. Except before it was in certain limited areas which still required human interaction.

But it doesn't require a whole lot, when you have an AI more capable than any human in a humanoid body, to figure out who is going to be chosen.
You won't get rid of all humans at least not yet, but you don't need that either to create a catastrophe where politicians/we have to act. We all know how slow these political systems are and how inefficient this process is, so a few decades might not be enough. If his predictions are correct (he has been wrong many times before), then in the next few years we are going to see more and better robots getting developed, and a lot of these are not specialized in a certain task, but to solve many tasks.

And to me, this is going to happen the only question is how long it will take, these huge companies are not just playing around with billions of dollars just for fun, so we have to be prepared for the transition into a world where humans might be the worse employee you can hire.

I can't predict the future until it happens.
We will see what happens.

 

[Nimos]

It commonly is in the eyes of people who dis profit.
So I post about it not just for you, but for other readers too.

I can't predict the future until it happens.
We will see what happens.

When I talk about socialism, I don't mean the usual USSR, China ones, which honestly in my opinion have very little to do with the "true" intention of socialism. You can have investors in socialism just as much as you can in capitalism. And it is still about profit, but maybe more about how the profit is distributed. So instead of the CEOs, and investors taking all the money they also go to the employees that in most cases worked their asses off making the company a success in the first place, to me that sound rather fair.

So I agree with you, that if we are talking about the USSR, China socialism/communism "version" then that is hopeless.

The issue is that these things are not particularly in the future, it is happening right now. If we just look at the whole AI thing and how unprepared society is, take something like this, which happened not long ago, you probably heard about it, but my guess is that a lot of people didn't:

Top tech CEO including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates discussed the future of artificial intelligence in a closed meeting with a bipartisan group of Senators on Capitol Hill.

Who is running things here? is it the government (people) or the companies? Because the government has no idea of what AI is or how to deal with it. The people that make the security around AI are the companies themselves.

This is from OpenAI website (those that made Chatgpt):

Technical leadership​

To be effective at addressing AGI’s impact on society, OpenAI must be on the cutting edge of AI capabilities—policy and safety advocacy alone would be insufficient.
We believe that AI will have broad societal impact before AGI, and we’ll strive to lead in those areas that are directly aligned with our mission and expertise.

Cooperative orientation​

We will actively cooperate with other research and policy institutions; we seek to create a global community working together to address AGI’s global challenges.
We are committed to providing public goods that help society navigate the path to AGI. Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research.

These are their own rules and even if they somehow (which they won't) got under serious control by the government. This doesn't apply to any foreign countries, there are absolutely no serious rules about this, it is decided by the companies and whatever agreement they have made with whatever government, apparently behind closed doors.

Shouldn't normal people be somewhat concerned about this, it does after all impact our lives as well.

 

[Valjean]

The only issue is that maybe the men should also get something?

On a more serious note, looking at the projection data, the world population is primarily increasing in Africa and falling or is pretty steady in the rest of the world. If we want to stop overpopulation we have to get Africa out of poverty.

Population growth per continent

Why can't incentives involve both sexes?
On the other hand, the carbon or eco footprint of your average African is a fraction of that of a European or American. How do we make small or child free families popular?

There's also the economy to consider. Government isn't going to have much incentive to promote decreased family size as long as economies depend on perpetual growth.

Q: Why do people have children? It helps to understand causes if you expect to formulae effective solutions.

 

[Valjean]

My point is, that based on the data. It shows that people in developed countries, especially those where women are educated get fewer children, which is why we have a decline in Europe and such a small increase in the US. Also, China is declining as they get richer as well. So there will be a natural stop to population growth.

Unfortunately, the decrease in birth rates among educated women takes a generation or two to manifest.
China's a unique case. Traditionally large families were highly valued status markers. After several decades of Mao's one-child policy, though, the tradition was largely broken among the younger generation. The social and economic benefits of fewer children had become clear.