Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose<p>&gt; What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge?<p>It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our american&#x2F;european standard of living. The other is naive and stupid and ignores the fact that we humans are capable of wielding planetwide power.<p>The same strain of thinking that lets someone imagine himself as a tiny speck inconsequential to the cosmos, leads to denial that our species can affect the biosphere we live in. There’s a lack of context and of material security and of a culture of cultivating peace and mutual support.<p>I think there’s a middle ground which acknowledges our need for stewardship, for human-in-the-loop systems level thinking about how we can garden our planet into a sustainable system that is not only able to support us but also helps us to thrive and to enjoy in the miracle of existence.<p>We have to take stock of what we’re doing that isn’t working, and push for long term success in renewables, efficient human living, beauty in our proximate environments (not just faraway nature preserves). And we have to reckon with needing to mine huge amounts of materials in order to manufacture things like batteries and solar panels to make all this happen.<p>Ultimately I think we’ll continue to make progress in exactly these goals and it’s important to not lose hope, and to try to positively affect those around you (especially young folks, children are the future).