spodek

No tech magazine posts short quotes from other sources.

Low tech magazine posts longer, original articles.

Same people behind them, as best I can tell.

We can't change the past so have decades to centuries of climate change to handle, but we can do a lot more to stop future contributions to climate change.

The biggest effect anyone can have, beyond fewer kids, less meat, and flying less, is learning to lead others, which multiplies our effects. Of course, to lead others we have to lead ourselves first, which means fewer kids, less meat, flying less, and all those, as means to the end of leading others, especially CEOs and elected officials.

People kept saying, "Josh, you have to get on Clubhouse. It's growing fast. A land grab. People are staking claims. You could be the sustainability guy on the site. Don't miss it." I don't use Apple, so had to borrow a friend's old phone to try using it.

I participated in a few conversations and met some people, but that's what I would have done otherwise. I'll still participate in it sometimes, but the iPhone has been sitting in the closet for a while and I haven't installed it on my regular phone. I don't regret the time I spent on it, but will be more prepared for the next trendy trend: "Oh, you mean like Clubhouse?"

I consider No and Low Tech Magazine among the best sites on the web. He's living by different values than mainstream. He loves technology and he loves sustainability. For many those loves conflict. They keep seeing attempts to make things more efficient lead to more pollution. They don't think in systems.

His values are more in line with history, particularly before the industrial revolution. He finds out and shares how people did things without burning fossil fuels that we can learn from.

The site has changed my life. One example: his articles on how power grids become insecure and expensive with higher uptimes, making using just renewables harder https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/12/keeping-some-of-the-..., combined with an article on fermentation in Vietnam https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2017/02/vietnams-low-tech-fe... led me to try unplugging my fridge. Using my windowsill for cold and fermenting, my first try two winters ago, I made it three months. My next try, last winter, I started earlier and made it 6.5 months. My food was as delicious as ever and my electric charges dropped to under $2.00 per month. More importantly, I live more resiliently. If more people lived this way, large parts of the country could go with just renewables, barely any batteries, no peaker plants, no nuclear, more health, longevity, prosperity, stability, energy security.

With that little energy use, I'm going to try taking my apartment off the electric grid for a few months this winter. That's living in Manhattan. I'll also start earlier as I developed more skills to store and ferment without a fridge, so starting in October or maybe September, I figure I can go 8 or 9 months without a fridge -- that is, living resiliently.

To clarify, my power reduction is a side point. Divided by 7.9 billion it's a rounding error. It's the value shift from dependence to independence, from relying on burning fossil fuels to learning from my neighbors, family, and ancestors. The cause of our environmental problems isn't CO2 and plastics. They result from our behaviors, which result from our culture. He comes from a culture that doesn't cause these problems, or at least orders of magnitude less.

Such solutions are practical, affordable, immediately doable and most available to those with the least resources. His philosophy focuses on improving human life, community, and Earth's ability to sustain life.

Unless we choose not to use it. Our culture values growth and extraction. Other cultures have lived far longer than the period from the Industrial Revolution until now, often with higher marks of health, longevity, abundance, and prosperity without lowering their environments' ability to sustain life. Only very recently did our lifespans pass typical ones for other cultures, but in the US they're already dropping again.

We sometimes do so protect. We have national parks and protect endangered species, for example. We can do plenty more. Jevon's Paradox and rebound effects don't have to happen.

As long as the hardware runs Linux, I'm going to overwrite the operating system, so I'm indifferent. I've bought all my recent computers used from Craigslist and Linux runs great on all of them.

Regarding the environment and humans decreasing the Earth's ability to sustain life, the tech community doesn't seem to pick up on the pattern that technology augments the users' goals and values. As long as our culture values growth, extraction, externalizing costs, comfort, and convenience, technology that makes that system more efficient may decrease pollution in one element, but it makes the system more efficient. That is, we pollute and decrease Earth's ability to sustain life more efficiently.

When Watt made his steam engine, coal use went up. Uber was supposed to lower congestion and miles driven but they went up. We repeat the pattern over and over. The "father" of the Green Revolution, on winning the Nobel Prize said

> "The green revolution has won a temporary success in man’s war against hunger and deprivation; it has given man a breathing space. If fully implemented, the revolution can provide sufficient food for sustenance during the next three decades. But the frightening power of human reproduction must also be curbed; otherwise the success of the green revolution will be ephemeral only.

> Most people still fail to comprehend the magnitude and menace of the “Population Monster”. . . Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth…"

He understood the value of technology as well as anyone in theory and practice. He recognized that we have to change our values from growth to enjoying what we have, from externalizing costs to responsibility, and so on or technology will keep exacerbating and augmenting our problems. That pattern includes nuclear, electric vehicles, and space travel. They may solve local problems, but they exacerbate the systemic effect. Electric vehicles, for example, make sense as a tactic under the strategy of reducing vehicles. Nuclear makes sense only as a tactic under the strategy of lowering power consumption. But we keep valuing producing more cars and energy.

This community seems over and over again to miss the systemic and unintended side effects. If we had clean fusion under our current values, we wouldn't live as we do today only cleaner. We would grow again until we hit more limits and had to live again under scarcity or natural calamity. Borlaug worked the second half his career to help people see the consequences of helping solve only part of our system but not the system.

If we have to stop growing at some point, at least acknowledging the laws of thermodynamics, the sooner we do it, with the smaller number of people, the more abundance we can live with. The more people we have, the harder to limit ourselves. If we don't, nature will, as we all know.

Role models help tremendously. So far we've had them almost uniquely in the other direction, but the motivation to follow will become overwhelming.

Soon even Americans will choose not to run a/c 24/7 May to September and fly at a whim.

Incidentally, less tech usually reduces pollution and increases health, longevity, stability, and resilience more, though it doesn't make the headlines.

We've changed many practices against pure profitability, including asbestos, marketing cigarettes to children, HCFCs, and slavery.

We may not have reached 100% on each, but we've changed a lot. We have other values than money.

Increasing solar and decreasing oil are largely independent. History shows that when we find new energy sources, we keep using the old and add the new.

Solar allows us to keep doing some things that oil powers, but we would stop using oil at some point, limited by pollution killing too many of us, running out, or choice.

They talk about regional flight. Does anyone have any sign that battery-powered planes carrying a hundred people will cross the Atlantic, Pacific, or the U.S.?

The physics in Tom Murphy's textbook https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2021/03/textbook-debut suggests it's impossible. I've talked to people at electric plane companies who have offered no hope.

I originally thought since we engineered from the Wright brothers to 747s, aren't we just at the Wright brothers stage now, but am starting to conclude it's not possible.

He focuses on shoplifting in San Francisco.

Over here on the other coast, I focus on littering in Washington Square Park in Manhattan, though related to the broad-daylight wide-open sales and use of heroin and crack combined by the police retreating from walking through the park to only standing behind barricades near the arch.

I posted a couple videos on it here: https://joshuaspodek.com/pride-destroyed-the-park-washington.... I've picked up litter every day since 2017, starting from an environmental motivation, but as a resident since the 90s with civic duty, safety and crime have become important.

> I assume Karachi isn’t that bad yet.

Weather or climate? Weather is incidental. In terms of climate, further increases for decades are locked in from past emissions we can't change.

For the present, at each moment, we can choose to contribute to further suffering or not. As you mentioned, it's becoming life-threatening.

Exactly two things work: reducing our consumption and reducing our birth rate. Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand showed how to reduce birth rate in the opposite of China's One Child policy or eugenics -- that is, voluntary, noncoercive, even fun -- as did Costa Rica, Iran, and several other countries. Most Americans can improve their quality of life by lowering consumption. I reduced mine over 90% with just life improvements. I estimate most Americans can reduce theirs 80% or more without sacrifice, just improvements. The most polluting can probably reduce theirs 99%.

Systemic change begins with personal transformation. Government and corporations will follow individual action, as they historically have. Personal transformation enables us to lead others. Leading others has the biggest effect because it multiplies.

To act here and now, the most important thing we can do is to learn leadership skills to lead ourselves and others.

If by norm you mean the slope, yes. If you meant the y intercept, no. Soon it will be hotter. In Karachi and where you live too.

To change the slope, exactly two things work: reducing our consumption and reducing our birth rate. Mechai Viravaidya in Thailand showed how to reduce birth rate in the opposite of China's One Child policy or eugenics -- that is, voluntary, noncoercive, even fun -- as did Costa Rica, Iran, and several other countries. Most Americans can improve their quality of life by lowering consumption. I reduced mine over 90% with just life improvements. I estimate most Americans can reduce theirs 80% or more without sacrifice, just improvements. The most polluting can probably reduce theirs 99%.

Systemic change begins with personal transformation. Government and corporations will follow individual action, as they historically have. Personal transformation enables us to lead others. Leading others has the biggest effect because it multiplies.

It would mean many people wouldn't choose to live flying distance from their families in the first place and they would go to local events, and people would connect more with local community.

There's so much to object to about the idea that Earth is overpopulated. Then you get it and it hits you like a ton of bricks. The signs are everywhere and couldn't be more clear. But we're addicted to growth and efficiency, ignoring our limits, and our addiction blinds us to seeing what's plainly all around.

Wow, right out of the song: They paved paradise and put up a parking lot . . . They took all the trees and put them in a tree museum, and charged the people a dollar and a half to see them. Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got 'til it's gone?

We know what not to do and sleepwalk into it anyway.

Joni Mitchell: https://youtu.be/94bdMSCdw20

Counting Crows: https://youtu.be/tvtJPs8IDgU

The first words of the first link returned searching on "what is extinction rate" says

> Life on Earth is under pressure

> By the end of the century, half of all species could be facing extinction. The rate of species extinction is up to 10,000 times higher than the natural, historical rate.

Nobody loves and values science more than I do, and people are free to work on what they want, but the greater need seems to be stopping our causing extinctions. Restoring one or two while losing millions doesn't seem a good trade.

That was the case decades ago. Since then consumer culture has exploded the quantity of garbage and plastic has turned it from in principle biodegradable to lasting millennia and poisonous.

Mountains of garbage like the ones in India didn't exist. Soon they will everywhere if we don't change our course.

Its average garbage level looks like the CO2 levels in the Scripps Observatory graph -- https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png: seasonal ups and downs over a long-term increase.

Meanwhile, did you see the image of the mountain of garbage in India? They didn't plan to make it. We don't either, but this is how they happen.

Here's the video in the post: https://youtu.be/-P0VcMekbO4

and the beginning text:

Following up my last video on what American culture is doing to what could be one of its jewels, here is a shorter, punchier view of Washington Square Park today.

The quote, “Pride Destroyed the Park,” comes from a woman who stopped me while I was taking pictures to tell me the park had 10 times more garbage a few hours earlier. Several people told me so. You can see teams of people cleaning it, around 9:30am.

It is not a sanitation issue.

It is not just a parade issue.

It doesn’t matter who was in the parade.

You can make a difference. You need never buy bottled water, soda, takeout, or nearly any packaged food again in your life, starting this moment.

[The post continues, with copies of the pictures in the video]

Schools and districts serve the bureaucracy more than the students, teachers, or parents, it seems to me. Not sure when the transition happened. Probably generations ago.

Let's remember that the greatest efficiency comes in not shipping so much stuff. We ship a lot of junk. Buying less stuff would lower emissions with no costs. On the contrary, we'd improve our lives.

Exactly. McDonald's doesn't sell food. I call it "doof", which is food backward, plus more meaning, as in this podcast: https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the-environment/episo...

In this community, I think you can say, "The more you tighten your grip, Bezos, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Any one plastic bottle affects a yet smaller fraction, and yet we have several ocean gyres filled with material that will last centuries. And they're growing.

I hadn't thought of this consideration before the grandparent of this post, but now that it's been mentioned, it does seem that the time we can blanket dismiss environmental effects in favor of national security are over.

Ali

We Can Dance Around Environmental Problems All We Want. We Eventually Reach Overpopulation and Overconsumption: https://shows.acast.com/leadership-and-the-environment/episo....

It's difficult to believe something when the evidence opposes it and keeps growing. You can't change where you were born, but if you could it would lead to a better life more than hard work.

Calling them tech associates them with inventors and people who want to improve life.

The Sackler family and Purdue Pharma is a more accurate association. They purport to help and in some situation they do. We all love cat videos and notes from mom and dad. But they make money from addicting people. Whatever technologies they create serve that mission. They're not opposed to improving the quality of users' lives, but that's a side effect. Mostly they relieve craving in ways that recreate it.