Q&A from the TED stage: Paul Gilding and Peter Diamandis debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- Is the Earth maxed out, or should we be optimistic abut being able to solve our future? At TED2012 last week, Paul Gilding made the case for the former, and Peter Diamandis argued for the latter. And then: they debated onstage. Watch the video above to find out what happened.
Watch the original TEDTalks:
Paul Gilding: The Earth is full -- www.ted.com/tal...
Peter Diamandis: Abundance is our future -- www.ted.com/tal...
Half full, half empty, both true, both realistic.
Peter really should be doing alot more talks on TED
Technology is a human concept and is not a separate entity.
Technology can be classified as human interaction with our environment from lighting a fire to channeling water.
Technology is not the problem the real problem is systematic efficiency that is present at micro scales and global scales.
There is no shortage of energy on earth if that is what you are implying. The issue is efficiency of conversion.
Okay, on shortage vs. abundance - what humans do is get the easy stuff first - the "low hanging fruit". There's still a lot of fruit left, but to get it we need to build more and more machinery and expend more and more effort (basically, more energy to get energy, or more energy and more resources to get harder to access resources)....
3:00 We do NOT have to move the oil and coal industries out of the way. All we need to do is make the alternatives cheaper than oil and coal and those industries will be as obsolete as whale oil lamps (except for using oil in plastics, etc.). It is not the oil companies that stand in the way, it is the price of the alternatives that makes them not competitive yet. But that is changing, fast, and there is absolutely nothing the oil companies can do to stop it.
Diamandis raises a good point (1:10), and we should consider it deeply.
But when considering, I'd say he's making a false assumption - that we've always overcome big problems. Every culture, every economy, every nation has failed, been absorbed, died off, or collapsed at some point. These were big problems to each civilization in their day. Peter is basically saying that since man hasn't gone extinct, we've been okay up to now.
But time heals all wounds - we forget the pains of yesterday.
If they all failed we would not be here.
These nations that have been considered to have failed have been replaced by greater nations that went on to be bigger and technologically more advanced states.
Peters point of the concept of abundance is really based on the developments in science and technology as opposed to historical references.
....And this is what is 'pie in the sky'. I don't deny that we have a chance to expand at some point. What I seriously question is our ability to maintain our current economic policy of continuous growth and NOT hit major environmental, monetary, governmental problems before we start meeting the good folks in Alpha Centauri.
We're entering the lunatic phase of industrialization. Some people see it, some don't. If I'm wrong, fantabulous! That's the best news I could get. But I don't think I am.
....It's basically diminishing returns, and that is the main thesis of Joseph Tainter's book, "The Collapse of Complex Societies". From Wiki: Tainter argues that sustainability or collapse of societies follow from the success or failure of problem-solving institutions and that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity and their "energy subsidies" reach a point of diminishing marginal returns.
We wrote a song called "Rise" inspired by his TED Talk "The Earth Is Full." We sent it to Paul Gilding and he said: I'm honoured and delighted it motivated you! Here's a link to the song. soundcloud.com/this-human-condition/rise
Well, thank you for that link, and I did watch it. It's good - Rosling's premise, backed by data, is that an increase in economic strength results in benefits like a lower child mortality. Notably, he also has data that all improved economies result in higher CO2 emissions.
But, it doesn't really have relevance to this discussion. Rosling is really pointing out that which is obvious. No one denies that life has improved the past 100+ years.
The question now is if we are at a turning point....
I know Peter's heart is in the right place. He wants the future to be brighter than it is now. This is, of course, noble and worthy of much effort.
But what I see is a lot of "pie in the sky" ideas and little concrete evidence of success. It's ideas like mining asteroids. To get there, we'll need not only huge breakthroughts in technology, we'll need the resources NOW and the economic health NOW, and we'll have to sustain it for decades.
Possible? I'd say it's a long shot, as does Gilding.
Nano based sciences are enabling greater efficiency at both micro and distribution levels.
Energy systems are being revolutionized by nano engineering and intelligent management.
Actually peter Diamandis has stated that he does not trust corporations or governments to overcome our problems that are not in the future but right now. His position is that individuals are now starting to have access to technologies that will enable the development of abundance you and me are using one right now.
Paul is right on this one, simply because peter does not consider the power cooperations have over the implementation of new(however good they might be) inventions). Car´s running on water existed decades ago and we are still using oil, im just saying
Talk about the future of the planet, presented on a grand stage with the founder of the event moderating. Less than 9,000 views. Doesn't seem right ...
....The notion that the West's improved economies can continue to grow, and grow, and grow - while the developing world grows to enjoy the benefits that we have had since WWII - and that the Earth has the capability to sustain this - this is what Gilding is addressing. We're already seeing major environmental effects to this growth.
We have all bought into the notion that growth can continue FOREVER in a finite environment. Diamandis wants to go to space as the solution....
Yeah, the Coca Cola crack was a reference to his Abundance video - not this one. Personally, I think he's doing PR in this video - he's clearly very comfortable with corporations, and to do the types of science and engineering he describes REQUIRES vast budgets. An individual simply isn't going to be able to do the vastly complex science and design on their own (like nano) - it requires huge R&D budgets and immensely expensive equipment (i.e. financial backing).
"If they all failed we would not be here." There's a difference between cultural collapse and extinction.
The problem with Diamandis and the worship of the TechnoGod (the faith that technology will solve any and all problems forever) is the blind trust that we are somehow so special that we can avoid the fate of previous civilizations because we are just so clever and gots da techno-power.
Gilding is not saying we're going to die out. He's saying we've got some serious issues coming....
A car running on water did not exist decades ago. Cars running on hydrogen were around decades ago but they had issues in terms of competing with petrol.
This will happen sooner if the oil and coal companies lose their subsidies. A new alternative has to be REALLY cheap to beat something you only have to pay for part of.
I agree that the 'west's' economies are breaking down due to their fiat money/central banking systems and sovereign debt, but that does not invalidate what Peter is saying. It is the entrepreneurship of individuals and small groups leveraging with technology that will be the source (of any and all?) solutions. The only question is the degree to which governments will assert their power so as to hamper the efforts of individuals to do what needs to be done.
Is Peter shorter than I thought, or are the other guys tall as hell?
I think you have your societies mixed up. In a totalitarian society (IE: pure state), 'then' you would have a situation in which the government could 'not give it to us'. But if there is any 'free market' at all involved, then they are not in a position to deny it. If I invent a gizmo that makes electricity out of water and sell it, the cat is out of the bag. The free market is your friend, it is government that would hinder.
Sorry, you sold it to exxon. Then, using fake science, they discredited the gizmo and you;then sued you for everything you'll ever own.
I'm with Paul Gilding on this one. This isn't going to be a smooth transition, we need to expect some difficult times to motivate a powerful response. If we think there is nothing to fear, we will not act in time. Peter's argument falls on this point alone.
Concrete evidence?
watch?v=YpKbO6O3O3M