This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
First time poster so i'm not very well versed in the formalities here just to let you guys know.
Will try to be as direct as possible.
Main statement, Im of the coviction that modern civilization is doomed to collapse. Because of energy constaints, namely the energy return on investment (EROI) of: peak oil and renewable energies. Further more the energy density of oil alternatives is not dense enough to accomodate the modern standard of living.
Here a couple pieces of information that support my viewpoint: Number 1: "EROI of different fuels and the implications for society (2014)" research paper by Charles A.S Hall and others. Number 2: The article "renewables-ko-by-eroi" on the website energytransition.org. Number 3: "Energy, EROI and quality of life (2014)" by Jessica G. Lambert and others.
A couple of assumtions i made are that high EROI is needed for modern living. In case of big EROI losses there will be a massive increase in civil unrest. There is enough coal in the ground to supply our energy needs. However this is not very applicable in cars nor is it good for the envirmoment, which in turn will cause civilisation collape in the longhaul.
Some previous discussion points:
Nuclear, Nuclear is very good on the small scale. However there is not enough uranium to support longterm global reliance on nuclear energy. If the entire world would switch to nuclear energy today, the known uranium supply will be depleted within 5 years. See the article: "Why nuclear power will never supply the world's energy need" on phys.org.
New Oil, while we are still finding new oil deposits, the discovery rate of the new oil depositst follows a downward trend. (the line has the same figure like a normal-distribution) Some pieces that support this statement, See 1: The USGS forecast. See 2: "Ecology in Times of Scarcity" by John W Day and others. See 3: the article "The Growing gap" on planetforlive.com. Also the new discoveries are very often in locations that are diffuclt to access. Think of very deep sea or antartica, et cetera. This ensures the Energy cost getting this oil will be high, so it is coupled with a high EROI.
It would be very nice to hear some counter viewpoints! Because looking at the future and seeking a bleak one is not nice.
If i forgot anything please let me know!
All the best,
William
The others have covered most points. But here's a few more:
Modern civilization doesn't need to sustain the current status-quo eternally. Nuclear Fusion has been 5 years away for a good century, but it is reasonable to expect it to get there within the next century. Nuclear fusion is infinite energy. So, we only need to survive for 100 years. Piece of cake.
The young are increasingly anti-car, and many cities are slowly but surely, moving away from the 60s-highway-maximalist approach to living. The nature of capitalistic lobbying and collective delusion might make it difficult to uproot cars from our lives. But, it is NOT civilization ending. Car "free" cities ARE a future that is qualitatively better than what we currently have in North-America.
If the scare quotes are intentional, then it is worth pointing out that low-car-use cities are the present, not the future. Above a metro area population of about a million, the city where most people don't drive most of the time is the default in Continental Europe and first-world Asia.
Not scare quotes at all. I meant to point towards exactly what you pointed out in your comment. That car-free cities are only nominally car-free. Car-free just means low-car, which is both an achievable and desirable future.
Wish I would've thought of this one first :\
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link