Also, the book "Ministry For The Future" is an SF take pulling together ideas people have on climate change. The actual prose may make you throw the book at the wall.
You can, if you wish, push information forward. For example, having free interfaces to solar panels, cheap sun following controls, software to control car charging for cheap times, software to use a car as a 'peak load' battery, data modelling to show Hawaii why tourism is better with only electrics, software to create micro cargo ships with solar power, cleaning up the automated kite power generators that were open sourced, and the like.
The climate crisis is the defining issue of our lifetimes. Solutions to this problem are unlikely to come from technology. Start organising, start protesting and demand that governments begin to take this issue seriously.
Technology is the only hope we have. We are increasing in number and probably couldn't feed the world without modern technology. Technology is rapidly reducing the impact that human activity has on the climate. Governments can't fix this by edict, it will need a practical solution.
>Technology is rapidly reducing the impact that human activity has on the climate.
I think it's only partially true. It really comes down to your definition of tech.
But i guess your right that green tech is our only hope to keep the planet inhabitable for 8 billion people.
I completely agree. A solution is available to us right now: regulation. Ignoring this solution in favor of economic growth or a future magic bullet is folly.
Demand your government do more. If you are in the US and a Republican, at least politely request that your party acknowledge climate change as a reality.
It’s just as easy to say that solutions are unlikely to come from anything but technology. But organizing/protesting/demanding might be a big part of the way we get there.
> Solutions to this problem are unlikely to come from technology.
I'd say from technology alone. It is clearly also a collective and societal problem. But a big part of the problem is that much of the things we do are mal-adapted to that reality, and need to be changed - and this will, of course, include a lot of new technology.
Can I suggest the exact opposite? The best solutions are likely to come exactly from technology because technology solutions are systematic. The impact of government policy and individual action just doesn't scale in the same way.
Asking people to consume less meat, won't do anything - creating lab-grown meat and making it cheaper than the alternatives will phase out most factory farming by itself. Regulations on fossil fuels won't reach every country and won't persist with every change of government - making cleaner fuels more economically viable than fossil fuels will scale over the entire planet. This isn't an argument against regulations - until the tech catches up, regulations might be the best we can do but better and cheaper technology is always a more persistent option.
It's very similar to what is happening with coronavirus - you can have the government impose some measures, you can ask people to make responsible decisions but that is just buying time until technology actually solves the problem - invent a vaccine and you have the problem as close to solved as possible. I think the same goes with climate change, the difference is that for climate change we need a large number of really good technology solutions instead of just one.
Protesting doesn't accomplish systematic change. Protesting under totalitarian liberalism is only allowed when it is functionally the equivalent of a parade: a celebration of the existing values of the elites.
It makes me so sad that people believe this is a problem without strong scientifically rigorous evidence.
Climate crisis should be lumped in as fake news, disinformation until such time as it can either be shown to be real or not. How many more failed predictions such as the end of snow by 2010 do we have to put up with.
Even those politicians who spouted on about this such as Al Gore and Barack Obama have bought expensive sea front houses. Clearly they are no longer worried about rising sea levels...
So what? It is the most important question of your times, whose outcome will likely determine the future of humanity. Far more relevant than the next JavaScript framework.
And also, hard questions do have interesting answers - they are intellectual challenges as well, as they need true out-of-the-box thinking.
yet nobody complains about the endless onslaught of questions like "How does your company leverage cloud blah blah blah" and "How do I become a software developer without a compsci degree?"
Or some version of "What are the biggest pain points in your job?" or "Which SAAS would you pay the most money for? Please only give answers that I can build by myself with the stack that I already know in an afternoon"
I do get slightly tired of those. They seem less common than the poster's question (at least lately). However, many of those have questions fo have more specific criteria, like the individual's skills, experience, and location. Not quite as general as "what can a programmer do about climate change".
Create a relocation Airbnb app for the millions that will be displaced once we hit 2-4 degree Celsius increase in global temperature. Also, charity apps for more frequent hurricanes destroying cities.
Great idea! You could look for desmog.co.uk, and also for the technical aspects of the work of Carole Cadwalladr (see Guadian / Observer) and James Patrick (https://twitter.com/search?q=%40agoodfireburns%20misinformat... ) who researched a lot about on-line disinformation.
develop tech for ag to automate ag and to make it more efficient...both indoors and outdoors. what we lack most is ag robotics and automation as labour saving tech in food farms and fields.
solar energy tech to power our automation instead of batteries and fossil fuels.
rewild and reforest most of the earth's surface.
give people viable methods of contraception and spread the message for it's adoption so they have more control over their lives to aim for quality of life for progeny rather than quantity of progeny. population pressures and consumption levels indicate that we have crossed carrying capacity. more lives will be lost tragically and painfully when the statistical guarantee of depopulation begins with scarcity of resources that will first start to dwindle and then disappear due to increased human activity and then amplified consumption patterns.
Exactly!! This!! I say this all the time too! The vegan labeling is the death of many a food startup that thinks the branding is going to bring them more consumers. It is exclusionary and drives consumers away.
Other than getting a job in green technologies, simply being a green consumer is an additional benefit(Reduce meat, low carbon transport). Maybe invest in green funds? Make me being green the standard approach.
Vote for parties that take climate change seriously.
I think that's the most a normal individual can do.
I do not think this is enough. And it is not adequate. And more than all, it is not a dignified way to live while present fellow humans and future generations are and will be suffering from the consequences of our lack of action.
It is like we live in a space station which is on fire, only at a larger time scale. We all need to fight, one way or another, for our collective survival.
Readit News
Also, the book "Ministry For The Future" is an SF take pulling together ideas people have on climate change. The actual prose may make you throw the book at the wall.
You can, if you wish, push information forward. For example, having free interfaces to solar panels, cheap sun following controls, software to control car charging for cheap times, software to use a car as a 'peak load' battery, data modelling to show Hawaii why tourism is better with only electrics, software to create micro cargo ships with solar power, cleaning up the automated kite power generators that were open sourced, and the like.
You have more power than you expect.
I think it's only partially true. It really comes down to your definition of tech. But i guess your right that green tech is our only hope to keep the planet inhabitable for 8 billion people.
Demand your government do more. If you are in the US and a Republican, at least politely request that your party acknowledge climate change as a reality.
I'd say from technology alone. It is clearly also a collective and societal problem. But a big part of the problem is that much of the things we do are mal-adapted to that reality, and need to be changed - and this will, of course, include a lot of new technology.
Asking people to consume less meat, won't do anything - creating lab-grown meat and making it cheaper than the alternatives will phase out most factory farming by itself. Regulations on fossil fuels won't reach every country and won't persist with every change of government - making cleaner fuels more economically viable than fossil fuels will scale over the entire planet. This isn't an argument against regulations - until the tech catches up, regulations might be the best we can do but better and cheaper technology is always a more persistent option.
It's very similar to what is happening with coronavirus - you can have the government impose some measures, you can ask people to make responsible decisions but that is just buying time until technology actually solves the problem - invent a vaccine and you have the problem as close to solved as possible. I think the same goes with climate change, the difference is that for climate change we need a large number of really good technology solutions instead of just one.
Climate crisis should be lumped in as fake news, disinformation until such time as it can either be shown to be real or not. How many more failed predictions such as the end of snow by 2010 do we have to put up with.
Even those politicians who spouted on about this such as Al Gore and Barack Obama have bought expensive sea front houses. Clearly they are no longer worried about rising sea levels...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20015037
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332012
And also, hard questions do have interesting answers - they are intellectual challenges as well, as they need true out-of-the-box thinking.
develop tech for ag to automate ag and to make it more efficient...both indoors and outdoors. what we lack most is ag robotics and automation as labour saving tech in food farms and fields.
solar energy tech to power our automation instead of batteries and fossil fuels.
rewild and reforest most of the earth's surface.
give people viable methods of contraception and spread the message for it's adoption so they have more control over their lives to aim for quality of life for progeny rather than quantity of progeny. population pressures and consumption levels indicate that we have crossed carrying capacity. more lives will be lost tragically and painfully when the statistical guarantee of depopulation begins with scarcity of resources that will first start to dwindle and then disappear due to increased human activity and then amplified consumption patterns.
Start a vegan fast food company. Don't advertise it as vegan, just make the food tasty and cheap.
Vote for parties that take climate change seriously.
I think that's the most a normal individual can do.
It is like we live in a space station which is on fire, only at a larger time scale. We all need to fight, one way or another, for our collective survival.