TBF there are far, far too many technological solutions that are “science will save us” but haven’t been fully fleshed out, studied, or require some modest form of unobtainium to work in mass deployment. Also, a huge chunk of those solutions would have to have been implemented 20 years ago, yet haven’t even made it off the proverbial drawing board yet.

IMO solutions need to be implemented now, like wind, solar, especially nuclear power, EV, etc. Yeah, nuclear is temporary, and yes, nothing stays in place longer than a temporary solution, but it’s a known and can be built now rather than yet another 5-15 years of waiting for untried tech solutions. Unfortunately the comic isn’t entirely wrong, we are going to need to lose some things if we want to save ourselves.

They say this and then reject every technological solution that exists. Like wind or solar energy. Trains. Ebikes. The goalposts always get moved to some not yet existant technology so nothing needs to change.

Conservatism is a plague that is long overdue for a cure.

To be fair, I don't know exactly what is meant.

But my mind went to meat consumption, which is higher in the developed world, is considered indicative of a high standard of living, and, in my opinion, is best addressed not by lab-grown meat (or other technological solutions), but by reduced consumption (the reduced living standard).

Plot twist: The technological solution requires resources of five earths.

I both agree and disagree, because this comic is dangerously vague.

A good example is electric cars. It would be great if everyone switched to electric cars, but it would be even better if we built a city that didn't treat pedestrians, cyclists, and public commuters as second class.

The difference being the latter doesn't let private equity make fat returns.

And yes ofc we can both.

I can't speak for the anarcho-primitivists but I can say I've been alive long enough to understand that a lot of miracle tech is just a cash grab or a way or distracting from the real solutions. Like carbon capture instead of just investing in renewables and zero emission solutions that exist.

Tech bros are intellectually and morally careless and if what they say seems to good to be true, it's likely not.

The classic fallacy that industries have sold us over the past decades that technology would solve all our problems. So funny. They are doing the same again with AI

the fuck is this shit doing in a solarpunk community lmao, this is just made up nonsense you'd see on facebook

Next you're all gonna say I should use dentures to chew my own food rather than have my underage slave girls chew it and spit in my mouth. You people disgust me.

Oh great, degrowth discourse this should go smoothly

That's a false dichotomy in a lot of the comments here

We do both

Carbon capture isn't so we can continue to use fossil fuels. It's because once we get to 0 emissions we still need to draw down the carbon in the atmosphere

An ounce of prevention is almost always worth a pound of cure but we're still going to want that cure because every extra tenth of a degree we can bring the Earth back to normal is going to be worth it

Let's see the technological solutions our top men at Silicon Valley have invented to save the earth

Underground tesla roller coaster

Clean coal

Stop farming food to make fuel instead

More people should just die, also, eugenics

If everyone lived like developed countries we would need even less resources because the birth rate is so low we wouldn't suffer over population. Also look at how less developed countries dispose of garbage.

Not denying how some developed countries send their trash to developing countries for disposal on the beaches. Fuck them. CEO's and politicians responsible need the rope.

Hey, why is making everyone use public transit instead of wastefully having everyone have their own private vehicle treated as "lowering living standards," huh?

Especially in a world where there's so many fucking cars that you can get stuck in traffic for hours and hours. We've rounded the bend where actually having serious public transit, that was moving on every public street every ten minutes, you'd suddenly have a lot more freedom of movement than you currently do with hours and hours of traffic. Public transit literally could be faster than a car in many big cities but people are too hung up on having to be around other people.

But nooooo, somehow freeing people from the logistically stupid nightmare of every human having a car and focusing on transit, we have to call that a "reduction in living standards." Get the fuck out of here.

"Clean" coal, corn based ethanol, hydrogen vehicles, plant a tree offsets, planet scale carbon filters, on and on...

If the owners want me to believe technology can solve the climate problem that is caused by their greed so their greed can continue destroying civilization socially unabated, they need to stop selling climate action policy snake oil to world governments for a quick buck.

And also maybe stop forcing workers who can work at a computer at home to drive into work to maintain the capital value of your commercial real estate as you bark orders from the luxury resort tour that is your life.

Until then, we know not living lives powered by burning ridiculous quantities of dead flora/fauna juice wouldn't further destabilize our only, increasingly uncomfortably hot habitat. We also know that simply stopping won't reverse the damage already done on a time scale humans can perceive.

We are literally turning the habitat of any future humans into 🔥Hell🔥. And if we couldn't make it work here, on easy mode, with enough pre-existing water/air/waste recycling to support millions to billions sustainably, we certainly aren't going to thrive on worlds where a single mistake means oops, everybody dead instantly try again. Im glad of that honestly, as the idea of growing/metastasizing into space and exploiting new world's resources almost makes dollar signs pop out of billionaire's eye sockets, and if thats the core reason they're so eager for us to spread out there, may we die on the vine.

I offer myself up for this. I already lowered my living standards years ago and I am quite comfortable with it.

Giant strawman. Not everyone advocating for degrowth is a primitivist.

So why is it that everyone pushing for 'reduced living standards' is also always shilling some new technologies to solve that problem?