1. I never said growth is infinite. That is the strawman, you implying I want infinite growth (without any future breakthroughs we can't even comprehend right now).
2. Stop implying I don't know what I am talking about.
3. Biosphere damage is indeed inevitable and an acceptable loss in the face of progress. But I disagree that total collapse is inevitable even if society changes.
4. The trick is knowing when to stop to avoid running into such a wall. That much I feel is possible. And even then there might be some kind of breakthrough allowing more growth.
5. Surveillance is, in the end, a societal problem. Information technology has brought more good than bad to the world, IMHO. Even current surveillance is worth it.
See, I think progress is a worthy goal unto itself, and undoing it without a very good reason is anathema to my philosophy. Deep ecology is not a good reason. I don't value non-sapient species as much as humans, why would I after all? I support environmentalism because humans can't survive without an environment.
No. Just no.
You assert it is a strawman, but it really is not. Here is what I mean:
Lets say you have kids. I presume you want them to have kids also, yes? Having grandkids is part of a rich and fullfilling end of life yes? EXPECTED even! DESERVED!
Well, unless you impose harsh reproduction restrictions, like china did in the past, you will have constant population GROWTH. Dare I say, perpetual growth, if you dont ever take the limits of the environment seriously.
I dont really want to come off as a sneering ekitist here, probably too late for that, but the abject DENIAL of this simplebfact about peeople-- 'limits like that are for other people, it will be OK if I have more kids/my kids have more kids/god blesses me with a large family' etc.
Many pundits will assert that highly advanced economic countries have declining birth rates, and point out Japan. They will say that this problem is self limiting, and there is no need to drink the ecology coolaid.
Let's examine Japan, with an ecological perspective.
Humans are animals. Highly social animals, but still animals. Animals stop making babies when they are stressed. This has plagued conservation efforts terribly, as the stresses of confinement in captivity make the critters either fail to ovulate or fail to seek or accept mates, or even triggers spontaneous abortions. In the case with humans, the synthetic environment we create for ourselves produces artificial stresses, 'work', 'taxes', 'success', 'social achievement', et al. In Japan, those stresses have reached critical density, and people "cannot afford the time" to have children. They stop accepting mates. They have abortions. Population declines. Quality of life goes down. These behaviors are the human expression of the prior cited behaviors. They are symptomatic of an unrelentingly stressful environment. An unhappy, miserable environment. (Completely unsurprising it has an astoundingly high suicide rate, and has death from work related stress as a popular culture topic.) Further, the country's denial of reality about its demands on ocean ecology for its food supply stand out nicely. (Look into it. Japanese fishing ships routinely violate internationally protected fish estuaries, to harvest endangered fish, that are endangered due to overfishing. The ecology problem in miniature.)
The notion you are aspiring toward, Is self-contradictory.
See also, part of your point one:
1. I never said growth is infinite. That is the strawman, you implying I want infinite growth
(without any future breakthroughs we can't even comprehend right now).Combined with part of your point 4:
4. The trick is knowing when to stop to avoid running into such a wall. That much I feel is possible.
And even then there might be some kind of breakthrough allowing more growthThis is a direct admission that you want the growth, but just dont want to pay for it. You want to use technology to (somehow) evade having to pay the penalty.
That is precisely what I have been contradicting you over. It is clearly NOT a strawman, you just are refusing the criticism.
I will again point you at things like the second law of thermodynamics. In a closed system, entropy only increases.
The pedants will assert earth is not a closed thermodynamic system, and they are correct. It is powered by the sun, and waste entropic energy bleeds into space as infrared photons. However, smug as they are with that correctness, they blissfully overlook how energy overbudget CURRENT human activity is, compared to the solar energy budget. We produce more entropy than the system eliminates. Entropy only increases. Energy utilization only goes up, the more tech you use. Entropy production will only go up, the more tech you use.
There is a word for this. 'Pollution.'
There cannot be a solution from science: science is already telling you that you are outside the solution space. You are overbudget on energy equilibrium.
As I alluded to earlier, when I mentioned the hypothetical AI scenario, humans dont like this answer. They want to reshape the environment to allow more growth.
Enter crazy geoengineering. Sunshades. Reflective aerosols. Space mirrors.
'We are liberating too much stored energy from synthetic piwer generation and heating the planet! Well, we cant cut back on energy use, thats thebsame as giving up technology! Lets block some sunlight instead!
Now you are literally starving photosynthetic life, en mass.
Way to go captain planet. Whats going to reprocess your atmosphere? Fairy farts?
This then creates a brand new need for synthetic atmosphere reprocessing, which needs more power, so you have to cut even more sunlight, to avoid baking the planet. You kill even more life.
Its a shell game that will only end one way. The way I spelled out for you.
This brings us to your own point 4 again. This time the first part. We have already hit the wall of the second law.
Your point 3, is an erroneous assertion, in the face of that fact. You are asserting that continued biosphere destruction is an acceptable loss.
I again, point out to you: Trillions of people hiding in plastic domes on a dead world is NOT salvation. Technology will not save humanity from itself.
The better option, is living in budget with the environment.
