If modernity cannot endure within planetary limits, what comes next? Dave Murphy and Tom Murphy debate the likelihood of collapse, the possibility of adaptation and what we owe each other in a time of ecological overshoot.

For instance, it is easy to see that growth—which has been a bedrock companion of modernity—cannot continue for much longer. So, why try? Fossil fuel use will necessarily decline, forming a pulse in time. Human population—temporarily inflated by agriculture’s heavy dependence on fossil fuels and other rapidly depleting gifts like aquifers and soils—will likely follow suit, exacerbated by climate change. A look at ore quality over time confirms that the low-hanging fruit is long gone, so that it becomes increasingly harder and more ecologically destructive to maintain the past century’s sprint in materials extraction—necessary for renewable energy technology. Recycling also has quantitative limits: only a few dozen cycles are practical before the recovered resource dwindles to insignificance. A forward, literal extrapolation of global ecological trends of the last century would leave us with no forests, wild land mammals or insects within a few human lifetimes—especially as firewood and hunting might offset faltering energy and agricultural outputs.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    17 days ago

    Something better is theoretically possible. Modernity can be replaced by a paradigm of human well being and sustainability. Theoretically. But whether or not that will happen is another matter.

    If it is to happen, the first thing we need to avoid is the pitfall of many theorists: creating a perfect world in our imagination and then trying to make the real world fit that image. We do not live in a theoretical reality, we live a material reality, and the limits and confines of material reality must be respected. We need to let material reality dictate what is possible, not try to impose our vision on the real world. If we try to fight the real world, the real world will win every time.

    Second, we can’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough. Perfection is an unattainable standard. If we set out to attain perfection, we will fail. Imperfect solutions that work are better than perfect solutions that don’t.

    Third, We need to be willing and able to learn as we go. We will not start out with all the answers. We can’t be inflexible.

    I think this is a start. I don’t think a top down approach will work. I don’t think we can just fix everything by electing different people into the existing national governments. New systems have to be built, from the ground up. I think the best place to start is where we live. Not the nation that we live in, but the city, the town, the community. We focus too much on governments that are hundreds or thousands of miles away from us, and we don’t focus nearly enough on the governments where we live and work and spend most of our lives. Maybe some will find it beneficial to start new communities or towns. Either way, we should start where we live.