It is typical grey and rainy October weather, though I am still mostly moving around in shorts and a t-shirt. People look at me like I am strange as they are rugged up, but I acclimatise myself to be warmer when it is colder, which I think is a pretty good gamble in Finland. Many are already sliding into light winter jackets, which means when real winter arrives and it is 35 degrees Celsius lower than it is now, they are going to be freezing their proverbials off. Last winter, I barely wore a jacket, unless on a longer walk outside.
At least for me, I think it makes sense to prepare for the averages, which is also part of the reason I generalise so much. I get called up on it by some people who say I generalise too much without considering individual conditions, but I disagree. When talking about larger groups and conditions, generalisation is the only way to go, otherwise the conversation is pointless as it is filled with endless caveats and exceptions. This makes conversations inactionable and the exceptions become the excuses for why nothing gets done. Climate change is a good example of this.
There should be close to zero argument around climate change.
And the arguments there are should be how to deal with it. Because it doesn't matter if it is man-made or a natural event, we as humans can only live in a narrow band of conditions so we should be doing all we can to ensure that band of conditions is stable - And the stability for those conditions depends on our environment. If we keep destroying the environment, reducing biodiversity, and pouring pollution into the land, air and water, the conditions can do nothing else but become more volatile.
Yet, so much of what holds us back from investing into creating a stable environment is due to wealth generation from fossil fuels and environmental practices that improve profits, at the expense of the environment. As I have said before, the most important invention we need right now is clean, free energy. Energy shouldn't be a profit-making industry at all and instead should be a given in order to build brilliant innovations. Obviously, that goes against the current energy model, where governments will make deals with dictators to get access.
Clean energy isn't just about limiting environmental impact, but having the ability to reverse the damage and restore biodiversity, forests, and clean the air, water and soils. With clean energy, cleaning machines are unconstrained by power needs, which means they can be built large and power hungry, but highly effective. Factory-size vacuum cleaners pulling in polluted air, cleaning and pumping out fresh air. Massive autonomous filters that scour the ocean and pull contaminants out. Underground farms built below enormous areas of reforestation. Coastal deserts turned into wetlands through desalination of sea water. And repopulation of animals in sea, on land and in the air.
The thing is though, that while clean energy would make this highly efficient, it is possible to get started now. Most of what we use our energy for in this world is irrelevant busywork and is largely environmentally unfriendly. This means it is doubly-harmful at least, because it both does direct harm and takes away the opportunity to do something else. Every action has an opportunity cost, and harmful action has a high cost. So does inaction when it comes to what needs to be done.
We keep acting as if we do not understand the implications of our actions, polluting, consuming, shooting missiles at each other. we are behaving like primitives who have not yet discovered how we effect our world. But we aren't primitive, we are just ignorant and unwilling.
Busywork is an energy sink
Redirect resources to making the environment better and I believe a few interesting things happen. Yes, many industries would die out and many more would have to fundamentally change their business models, but there would be a demand for new industries and massive growth in environmentally sound sectors. Not only that and perhaps more importantly, the "busywork" would start to disappear releasing energy to be spent on meaningful, positively impactful work that people are happy to do, because it matters.
It seems to be hard for people to imagine a world where everyone is part of adding positive value, where the environment is clean, safe and enjoyable to live within. A place where farmland disappears underground, filled with forests, cities are built with green space, clean air and water, and Time for people to enjoy it. A beautiful world, rather than one that is ripped apart to service the few.
If AI is going to make itself useful, it is going to have to be redirected from improving efficiency of busywork activity toward improving the efficiency of real work activity. All those data centres that will currently be used to feed entertainment and control, should first turn their energy attention to improving environmental conditions of earth. To secure habitability for humanity and ensure that practices align and are sustainable into the future. This shouldn't be a few companies struggling for funding and making little impact, it should be the entirety of humanity bending all its resources toward a better world.
It is pretty sad that given all the information and resources we have, we still can't organise ourselves to improve our world, and can only keep on degrading it. Slowing the destruction isn't going to cut it, we have to reverse environmental destruction and turn it into environmental construction. We have the ability, but where is the will?
Power corrupts.
No one wants the world to become inhabitable, yet because we have an economic model that rewards environmental destruction instead of development, we are all aligned to make things worse.
We have the power, but we are corrupted.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.