To be clear this is not a good thing. Technologically, climate action is best driven by densification and energy efficiency. We're just not going to go down that route. By 2024 we'll have concluded that climate action at the scale/speed we think is necessary is impossible.
-
Show this thread
-
So we'll default to the pop-science/tech idea of what's the best Plan B, which will be most people choosing to create survivable lower-density/lower-scale communities that mitigate local impact of effectively abandoned global climate action efforts.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
This is going to be ridiculously ineffective. A bunch of people in miserable little communes larping their favorite post-apocalyptic scenarios. But it should be entertaining to watch if you happen to pick one of the minority of good ones to spectate from.
2 replies 2 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
If this seems like a doom-and-gloom thread, it isn't really. There's plenty of room for positive dynamics to be spun up in this 3 act saga. My narrow point is that these motivating "broken system" problems aren't solvable and won't be solved.
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
But any positive dynamics are going to take longer than 10 years to have an impact. Collapse is faster than wealth-creation processes. Which is why you get busts while they race each other. Amara's Law of returns (overestimate short term/underestimate long term)
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
In purely technological revolutions, the interim tends to be between 1-3 decades. But when you're also simultaneously reinventing political and economic institutions, it could take much, much longer. Hence the dark-age scenario, which is more serious than people want to believe.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread -
Think of it as this. Whatever "this" is, it's the result of software eating the world. The only question is what are we rhyming with here? 1910s (3rd industrial revolution, mostly tech) 1800s (1st industrial revolution, tech+economic) 1650s:(westphalia... tech+econ+political)
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
The entire stack of modernity is shearing. The pace-layering is hard to call. But the length of the "dark age" can be anything from 10 to 100 years depending on the details of the shearing dynamics. The bigger the stack refactoring you think is going on, the longer the dark age.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Optimism versus pessimism is a very tedious kind of debate since history has always been multiharmonic cyclic overlaid on secular trends that can be interpreted as either progress or decline.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
The interesting question is predicting the lengths of the counter-cycles of the overall trend you think prevails. If you're fundamentally an optimist who thinks the arc of history is about progress overall, your task is to time the dark age lengths.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likesShow this thread
If you're fundamentally a pessimist, your task is to time the irrational-exuberance bubble epochs and short them. Permabear and permabull are both derpy futurist positions. The meaningful bets are on the transience of dark and gilded ages against a secular arc-of-history posture.
-
-
If you, like me, plan to basically ignore Act 2 of 2020-24 while hardening your economic defenses for long haul, this is the skip-to-the-end question we actually have meaningful time to consider. The issues driving 2020 are all past the point of no-return.https://techcrunch.com/2019/11/09/can-america-ever-rebuild-its-neighborhoods-and-communities/ …
3 replies 4 retweets 16 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.