Search Results
6/27/2025, 12:08:15 PM
>>508859838
The precise amount is really a separate debate, but even under the most favorable stable conditions I think the estimate was 2 billion. We are already farming all arable land and most of the worlds population is malnourished. As it turns out we cannot just stop eating meat or grow it in a lab. Humans require a web of complex life to support even the most minimal requirements.
>>508859838
>there's still room for "growth"
There are no tech enthusiasts who can answer the why question. What are you growing for if not just for technology itself. Here is the evolutionary mismatch fundamental to the overall problem tech enthusiasts cannot solve. I like technology, but is not the reason for existing. So if you agree we have to exist in the future a few things have to be controlled and managed that is not occurring now.
>>508859838
>there's still room for "growth"
If things were ideally managed, like say, a nuclear power facility, the first things you will realize is an entirely different set of tolerances than what we expect from industrial societies today. So if you are actually a tech enthusiast, why can't any tech enthusiast seem to achieve these overall conditions to maintain this level of advancement? I already answered this question>>508857780
Nuclear energy is not, what Adam Smith called "prodigal consumption". It is fixed capital. Make of that what you will but you have to agree that we are not doing it. Oil is not capital. You are consuming your prodigy and claiming to be technologists.
The precise amount is really a separate debate, but even under the most favorable stable conditions I think the estimate was 2 billion. We are already farming all arable land and most of the worlds population is malnourished. As it turns out we cannot just stop eating meat or grow it in a lab. Humans require a web of complex life to support even the most minimal requirements.
>>508859838
>there's still room for "growth"
There are no tech enthusiasts who can answer the why question. What are you growing for if not just for technology itself. Here is the evolutionary mismatch fundamental to the overall problem tech enthusiasts cannot solve. I like technology, but is not the reason for existing. So if you agree we have to exist in the future a few things have to be controlled and managed that is not occurring now.
>>508859838
>there's still room for "growth"
If things were ideally managed, like say, a nuclear power facility, the first things you will realize is an entirely different set of tolerances than what we expect from industrial societies today. So if you are actually a tech enthusiast, why can't any tech enthusiast seem to achieve these overall conditions to maintain this level of advancement? I already answered this question>>508857780
Nuclear energy is not, what Adam Smith called "prodigal consumption". It is fixed capital. Make of that what you will but you have to agree that we are not doing it. Oil is not capital. You are consuming your prodigy and claiming to be technologists.
Page 1