Steve,
T*he Alignment Problem*, by Brian Christian

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393868338/?bestFormat=true&k=the%20alignment%20problem&ref_=nb_sb_ss_w_scx-ent-pd-bk-d_de_k0_1_9&crid=HE3S012O7RZC&sprefix=the%20align

davew

On Tue, Jun 3, 2025, at 2:36 PM, steve smith wrote:
> One of my ongoing "salon" chats (me drinking tequila while chatting with GPT 
> about excruciatingly abstract ideations that ramble through my head and GPT 
> indulges me) has been on the question of "alignment".
> 
> Not in the sense of how to coerce/seduce/constrain AI development to follow a 
> path that leads to it's *alignment* with human values (whatever that is and 
> do we even come close to aligning in any way among ourselves).
> 
> Rather in the sense of trying to understand (perhaps with the help of LLM's 
> absurdly large base of human-knowledge convolved with it's abusrdly large 
> number  of correlative/inferential operations it can do on subsets of that 
> data and my own input/interactions)  how the "enlightened self interest" of 
> something as near and dear as an individual human organism and that of 
> perhaps "humanity at large", "the biosphere", and even broader, the unfolding 
> universe as a Complex Adaptive System (at least) or panConsciousness (at 
> most?) might all be aligned if the frame is pulled back far enough.  If our 
> conception of each of the three terms: *enlightenment*; *self*; *interest* 
> are generous and broad and inclusive enough?
> 
> Woo woo!
> 
> On 6/3/25 1:18 PM, glen wrote:
>> IDK. I get the feeling each of us is a little right and a little wrong. The 
>> poisoning of the Memphis air by Grok 
>> <https://youtu.be/3VJT2JeDCyw?si=-zH1AIgCpJ_fcdPd> is a fantastic example of 
>> why Capitalism is (has been) failing, despite its early success. It's not 
>> that we're all greedy pigs. Yes, *some* of us might be. But even Elno isn't 
>> merely a greedy pig. 
>> 
>> The problem is externalities, the things we can't even register for whatever 
>> reason. If Pieter (and Marcus in a different way) are right, what AI might 
>> be able to do that we have trouble doing is taking in a wider array of data. 
>> Maybe not *all* the data, but a much wider array than even our mega-machines 
>> like FedEx or Amazon logistics can't manage. 
>> 
>> The problem with that horizon is that there's a ton of work to be done to 
>> get there. And poisoning poor minorities on the way to that horizon isn't 
>> helping *us* do that work. Again, anyone who uses Grok is actively poisoning 
>> Memphis. That's an externality. I can't blame Grok users for being so 
>> stupid-or-evil because that's what Capitalism does to us. 
>> 
>> So, I end up landing with Jochen on this one. Even if there's a possible way 
>> to thread this needle, we prolly won't make it. And evil scum like Elno will 
>> help ensure our failure. But to be clear, I have no children and will be 
>> dead soon. So c'est la vie: 
>> https://www.npr.org/2025/05/31/nx-s1-5418932/we-all-are-going-to-die-ernst-joni-town-hall-iowa-senator
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/3/25 12:01 PM, steve smith wrote:
>>> Roger Critchlow wrote:
>>>> The core problem is that people are greedy little pigs.  Some are greedier 
>>>> than others and some are more successful in pursuing their greed, but 
>>>> we're all pigs and if offered the chance to take a little more for 
>>>> ourselves, we take it.  Scale that up and it's tragedies of the commons 
>>>> all the way down. 
>>>> 
>>>> -- rec --
>>> and somehow, our elevating of individuals and groups to positions of 
>>> (political, spiritual, moral) authority/power over ourselves (everyone 
>>> else?) to try to either limit this greed or mitigate its consequences has 
>>> had mixed results and coupled with (other) technologies has lead to an 
>>> iterative "kicking the can down the road" which keeps raising the stakes as 
>>> the (only?) way to avoid the current disaster we are facing? 
>>> 
>>> Is there any evidence or suggestion that the emerging AI overlords 
>>> (monotheistic, pantheonic, animistic, panconscious) will be more 
>>> clever/able/powerful enough to end this cycle? 
>>> 
>>> Or (as I think Pieter implies) this framing is just "all wrong" and there 
>>> is something like platonic "manifest destiny" that will lead us forward 
>>> through the chaos of our own technological shockwaves?   Is "the 
>>> Singularity" just the instant when we reach conceptual Mach1 and we catch 
>>> up with our bow-wave in the Kauffmanian "adjacent possible"?   We just need 
>>> to keep accelerating until we break that "barrier"?
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 12:17 PM Jochen Fromm <[email protected]> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>     One core problem is we have unleashed global capitalism and seems to 
>>>> destroy the planet. Once the planet has been destroyed and polluted it 
>>>> will be difficult to restore. Communism does not work because nobody had 
>>>> an incentive to work since nobody owned anything. Capitalism does not work 
>>>> because nobody has an incentive to protect nature. It means ruthless and 
>>>> relentless exploitation of everything to make profit. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     As much as I would like to be hopeful about the future I don't see 
>>>> radical abundance at all. It is true that AI systems become more and more 
>>>> powerful. They soon will be able to take away even the good, creative jobs 
>>>> like writing, translating, coding and designing. This means massive 
>>>> unemployment. In combination with high inflation this will most likely be 
>>>> devastating. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     If we look at the past what happened if prices went up radically and 
>>>> jobs were lost on a massive scale is that people become outraged and angry 
>>>> and then some demagogue comes along and deflects their anger and outrage 
>>>> towards group xy [immigrants or black people or LGBTQ folks or some other 
>>>> minority group] which is to blame for everything and he is the only man 
>>>> who can solve it because he is a strong man, etc. and we end up in a world 
>>>> world ruled by strongmen, each of them ruler of a great power having a 
>>>> sphere of influence and strategic interest in which they allow no 
>>>> opposition. In this autocratic world the big and strong countries decide 
>>>> the fate of their smaller neighbors and anyone who disagrees vanishes in 
>>>> an artic gulag or horrible prison in mesoamerica. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     As Edward O. Wilson said "The real problem of humanity is the 
>>>> following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike 
>>>> technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a 
>>>> point of crisis overall." 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     -J. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>     -------- Original message -------- 
>>>>     From: Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> 
>>>>     Date: 6/2/25 2:06 AM (GMT+01:00) 
>>>>     To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>>>> <[email protected]> 
>>>>     Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth 
>>>> 
>>>>     It seems I’m the only one here who’s feeling hopeful about the future 
>>>> of humanity. I don’t think civilisation is about to fall apart. In fact, I 
>>>> believe we’re heading towards a time of radical abundance. 
>>>> 
>>>>     I was going to prove this by asking my crystal ball… but sadly, the 
>>>> batteries are flat. So you’ll just have to trust me when I say I know the 
>>>> truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 
>>>> 
>>>>     Of course, many of you probably think you have the real truth. And 
>>>> maybe you're right! 
>>>> 
>>>>     I guess the honest thing to say is: the future is unknowable. We can 
>>>> all make good arguments, quote experts, and write long replies—but there 
>>>> simply isn’t enough evidence to say with high confidence what the future 
>>>> holds for humanity. 
>>>> 
>>>>     To end off: yes, I agree that without further innovation, we could be 
>>>> in serious trouble. But a strong counterpoint is that, over the last few 
>>>> hundred years, human creativity has helped us overcome challenge after 
>>>> challenge. 
>>>> 
>>>>     Unless someone shares a new angle I haven’t heard yet, I’ll leave it 
>>>> here and won’t post again on this thread. 
>>>> 
>>>>     On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 at 22:41, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> 
>>>> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>         Texas uses a lot more electricity than California despite being a 
>>>> smaller economy.   What’s interesting is that there is no one sink for 
>>>> that power.   It isn’t pumping (although there is a lot of pumping), and 
>>>> it isn’t residential air conditioning or data centers.   It’s bigger 
>>>> everything and an appetite to use power across the board. 
>>>> 
>>>>         *From: *Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of steve smith 
>>>> <[email protected]> 
>>>>         *Date: *Sunday, June 1, 2025 at 12:18 PM 
>>>>         *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> 
>>>>         *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth 
>>>> 
>>>>         As we know, I'm of the school of thought that (techno) Utopian and 
>>>> Dystopian visions are two sides of the same coin: 
>>>> 
>>>>         <peak-oil> 
>>>> 
>>>>             I think peak oil (fossil-fuels) is a real thing, now matter 
>>>> how much we slide the timescale with innovative ways to suck harder or 
>>>> deeper and burn it more efficiently... and in particular the side-effect 
>>>> of saturating the atmo(bio)sphere with carbon particulates, polymers (e.g. 
>>>> microplastics) and molecules (COn, CH4, etc) and the myriad attendant 
>>>> not-very-healthy-to-most-life chloroflouros and Nitrous-this-n-thats and 
>>>> ... on and on. We (in our technofuturist way) pretend we have maxwell 
>>>> demons or geni-rebottlers or pandora-box-refillers on the drawing boards 
>>>> which will do their work faster than entropy and in the particular 
>>>> techno-industrial concentrated-energy-fueled version thereof. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Fossil fuels made us into an incredibly energy-hungry/wasteful 
>>>> society...   I'm a fan of Switzerland's (nominal) 2000W society 
>>>> (aspiration), although the human *animal's* basal metabolic rate is <100W 
>>>> avg and peaks at 200-300W (burst performance athlete).   The the nominal 
>>>> consumption for the western world is EU (5k) and US (10k) of which a big 
>>>> part from the infrastructure and other "hidden" sources like transport of 
>>>> food/goods across the planet for our appetite and convenience. The "global 
>>>> south" is considered to make it on 500-1500W.   8B humans at "subsistence" 
>>>> would demand 8tW continuous and at US rates, 80tW continuous. 
>>>> 
>>>>             I haven't resolved this against DaveW's numbers but I take his 
>>>> to be order-of-magnitude accurate on principle.  As we add supersonic and 
>>>> orbital-vacation transport I suspect we might jack that another 10X...   
>>>> not to (even) mention power-hungry crypto/AI demands?   GPT (ironic no?) 
>>>> helped me guestimate 40w/user (engaged) continuous *currently*.  A 
>>>> significant fraction of a carbon-frugal "budget" and a measurable plus-up 
>>>> on our gluttonous US (and even EU or CH) versions? 
>>>> 
>>>>         </peak-oil> 
>>>> 
>>>>         <EV-enthusiasm> 
>>>> 
>>>>             I'm a big fan/early adopter (tinkerer really) of "electric 
>>>> vehicles" and renewable energy, but the numbers just don't work.   I was 
>>>> hypermiling my Honda CRX (fit my oversized frame like a slipper or roller 
>>>> skate) long before there were viable production electrics or hybrids.  I 
>>>> had  the back half of a donor CRX ready to receive the rear differential 
>>>> of a miata or rx7 (same stance, similar suspension mounts) with a 90's 
>>>> brushless DC motor as well as a pair of VW cabriolets (running but one 
>>>> lame) as well for the same conception (early 2000s) when I scored a 
>>>> year1/gen1 Honda Insight (and a friend spun the CRX out in the rain)...  
>>>> so I gave up on my hypermiling (70mpg RT to Los Alamos, power up, coast 
>>>> home) for thoughtful Insight-driving.   All three of these models were 
>>>> order 2k lbs.   Most vehicles are/were 3k-6klbs. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Along came the Chevy Volt (2011) and in 2016 I picked one up 
>>>> which had been used up... or at least the hybrid battery (at 166k miles). 
>>>> A used (95k mile) battery and a lot of tech work and it was back to full 
>>>> function.    The VWs never broke 40mpg hypermiling, the CRX clocked 70mpg 
>>>> in ideal conditions, the Insight topped 50-55mpg with careful driving 
>>>> (hard to hypermile a CVT), and with the PHEV nature of the volt I can 
>>>> still pull >70mpg if I ignore the input from the grid.   The old battery 
>>>> is offering about 10kWh of capacity for a homestead scale PV I'm 
>>>> assembling from $.10/W used solar panels mainly to buffer for the PHEV 
>>>> charging.   Unfortunately the replacement Volt battery is finally getting 
>>>> lame and replacement is such a huge effort this 15 year old vehicle will 
>>>> go the way  of many other 200k mile plus vehicles.   I've backfilled with 
>>>> a low(er) mileage 2014 Ford C-Max PHEV with only about 10 miles (compared 
>>>> to new-30 in the volt) PHEV which I'm getting 
>>>>             roughly the same effective MPG (still ignoring the grid 
>>>> input).   I'm looking for a Gen2 Volt which had 50mile EV-only range 
>>>> (otherwise very similar to Gen1) as I might move *all* my semi-local miles 
>>>> to Electric (and supply them with used PV staged through the upcycled EV 
>>>> batteries?). 
>>>> 
>>>>             FWIW, the anti-EV stories about the extra weight yielding 
>>>> accelerated brake/tire wear is specious in my experience.  My *driving 
>>>> habits* in an EV (or hypermiled conventional/hybrid) obviate excess tire 
>>>> wear (no spinouts, no uber-accelleration/braking) and even a thoughtless 
>>>> driver likely gets more from regenerative braking than any excess weight 
>>>> abuse...   I also claim that being MPG/consumption attunes my driving 
>>>> habits to fewer/shorter/slower trips.   I have owned a few gas-guzzling 
>>>> vehicles in my life, including one I commuted too far in for a while... 
>>>> the 32 gallon tank convolved with peaking gas prices and a 60 mile RT 
>>>> commute that year should have warned me off...  but instead I just closed 
>>>> my eyes and ran my plastic through the card reader 1.5 times per week... 
>>>> my housing cost differential paid the bill but without regard to the 
>>>> planet.  I did give over to a carpool in a 30mpg vehicle (shared 3 ways) 
>>>> for a while which really beat the 15mpg 1-person I was 
>>>>             doing otherwise.   I went through a LOT more tire rubber and 
>>>> brake pads in that context than I ever did in years of hybrid/EV 
>>>> ownership.  Did I say specious? Or at least apples-orangatans? 
>>>> 
>>>>         </EV-enthusiasm> 
>>>> 
>>>>         <Alt/Transport ideation> 
>>>> 
>>>>             I also have my 750W (foldable) eBike which is (currently) 
>>>> impractical to me (closest services 10 miles of 4 lane) for anything but 
>>>> recreation/exercise and a 300W lower-body exoskeleton, each of which has 
>>>> much better "mpg" in principle (esp eBike) when hybridized with human 
>>>> calorie-to-kinetic conversion. I've a friend (10 years my senior) whose 
>>>> e-Recumbent-trike with similar specs is his primary mode of utility 
>>>> transport (under 20 miles RT). 
>>>> 
>>>>             All that said, I don't think electromotifying 4-6klb hunks of 
>>>> steel and glass with environmental control suitable for 0F-120F comfort 
>>>> for 4+ people while traveling at 60+mph and making 0-60 accellerations in 
>>>> under 6 seconds  is really a viable strategy for the 8B folks on the 
>>>> planet we want to sell them to.   Esp with a useful lifetime of <15 
>>>> years?(planned obselescence aside?).   Maybe robo-taxi/rideshare versions 
>>>> in the context of (mostly) walkable cities (nod to JennyQ) and public 
>>>> transport and general local/regionalism is (semi) viable. 
>>>> 
>>>>         </Alt-Transport ideation> 
>>>> 
>>>>         <Local/Regionalism> 
>>>> 
>>>>              I've got strawberry plants making me (from compost and 
>>>> sunlight) fewer berries in a season than I just bought at the grocery 
>>>> imported from MX for <$3 (on sale)...  and my while I wait for my 
>>>> 3-sister's plantings to produce a few months of carbs/protein at-best the 
>>>> modern fossil-fuel/pollution global marketplace offers me the same for 
>>>> probably several tens of dollars?   As a seed-saving, composter with a 
>>>> well (that could be pumped by solar but isn't) my impact on planetary 
>>>> boundaries could be nil to positive... but it is hard to scale this up 
>>>> even for myself, much less proselytize and/or support my neighbors in 
>>>> matching me.   I cut Jeff Bezos off from my direct support (via Amazon 
>>>> purchases) when he aligned himself with the other TechBros aligning with 
>>>> the Orange Tyrant, so I may well have reduced my manufacturing/transport 
>>>> appetite/consumption a little (small amounts of that appetite moved to 
>>>> local traditional store-forward versions as well as direct-mail 
>>>>             purchases from non-Amazon/big-box distributors). 
>>>> 
>>>>         </Local-Regionalism> 
>>>> 
>>>>         <TechnoUtopianism> 
>>>> 
>>>>             I am a reformed technoUtopian...  I grew up on "good 
>>>> old-fashioned future" science fiction (starting with scientific romances 
>>>> from the early industrial age) and studied and practiced my way into a 
>>>> science education and a technical career/lifestyle and wanted to believe 
>>>> for the longest time that we could always kick the can down the road a 
>>>> little harder/smarter/further each time and/or just "drive faster".   And 
>>>> we are doing that somewhat effectively *still*, but in my many decades 
>>>> I've got more time glancing in the rear-view mirror to see the smoking 
>>>> wreckage behind us, as well as over the horizon to see how many of the 
>>>> negative consequences of our actions land on other folks who never came 
>>>> close to enjoying the benefits of that "progress".   I guess that means 
>>>> this erstwhile libertarian has become a "self-loathing liberal". 
>>>> 
>>>>             Or a convert to the Buddhist ideal of "Skillful Means"? 
>>>> 
>>>>         </TechnoUtopianism> 
>>>> 
>>>>         On 6/1/25 10:10 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>             I think you are underestimating how much progress has been 
>>>> made with batteries in recent years. 
>>>>             California has large solar resources, and it is not unusual 
>>>> that during the day the whole grid is powered by solar.  Here is from last 
>>>> week.  Note the huge surge of battery usage in the evening.   Tens of 
>>>> gigawatts of generation power are planned for offshore wind too. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Generally, though, I agree that much of the planet is 
>>>> completely addicted to oil, and there’s no technology that will yet handle 
>>>> air travel.  Hydrogen might work, but it will take time. 
>>>> 
>>>>             The way to break an addiction is to have the addict hit rock 
>>>> bottom. 
>>>> 
>>>>             There need to be some scary climate events.  The prices for 
>>>> energy need to increase before people change their ways. Redirecting 
>>>> energy into AI is one way to bring that to fruition. 
>>>> 
>>>>             A chart of different colors Description automatically 
>>>> generated 
>>>> 
>>>>             *From: *Friam <[email protected]> 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> on behalf of Prof David West 
>>>> <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> 
>>>>             *Date: *Sunday, June 1, 2025 at 8:27 AM 
>>>>             *To: *[email protected] <[email protected]> 
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> 
>>>>             *Subject: *Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth 
>>>> 
>>>>             Unfortunately, it is almost certain that there will never be 
>>>> enough 'fossil fuel free power stations' to supply needed energy for 
>>>> electric vehicles. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Data centers, driven in large part by AI demands and 
>>>> cryptocurrency will leave nothing left over. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Some numbers: 
>>>> 
>>>>             Three Mile Island, which is being recommissioned to supply 
>>>> power to a couple of Microsoft Data Centers, has a capacity of 7 Terawatt 
>>>> hours(T/w/h) per year. 
>>>> 
>>>>             In 2022 data centers, globally, consumed 460 TWh, by 2026 this 
>>>> is estimated to be  1,000 Twh. By 2040 projected demand is 2,000-3,000 
>>>> TWh. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Crypto adds 100-150 TWh in 2022, 200-300 in 2030, and 400-600 
>>>> in 2040. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Nuclear is unlikely to provide more than 25% of this demand. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Between now and 2040, it will be necessary to build 100 
>>>> TMI-capacity nuclear plants to supply that 25%. 
>>>> 
>>>>             If solar is to supply the other 75%, it will require between 
>>>> 66,000 and 80,000 square miles of solar panels. (Don't know how many 
>>>> batteries, but the number is not trivial.) 
>>>> 
>>>>             Wind power, for that 75%, will require 153,000 to 214,000 
>>>> turbines, each requiring 50-60 acres of space beneath them. (Also the 
>>>> problem of batteries.) 
>>>> 
>>>>             It takes 10-15 years to build a nuclear plant like TMI, have 
>>>> no idea now many dollars. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Neither solar nor wind, nor combined, can be installed fast 
>>>> enough to meet this demand and, again, have no idea of cost. 
>>>> 
>>>>             Nothing left over for cars, the lights in your home and 
>>>> office, or to charge your phone: unless, of course we continue to rely on 
>>>> oil (shale and fracking), natural gas, and coal. 
>>>> 
>>>>             davew 
>>>> 
>>>>             On Sun, Jun 1, 2025, at 6:24 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>                 This is why I’m so excited about electric vehicles—I feel 
>>>> like a kid waiting for Christmas! Add clean fossil fuel free power 
>>>> stations into the mix, and voilà: abundant clean energy, no miracle 
>>>> inventions required. Just some clever tech and a whole lot of charging 
>>>> cables! 
>>>> 
>>>>                 On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 at 12:57, Jochen Fromm 
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>                     I believe we all have a slighty distorted view because 
>>>> we were all born long after industrialization has started and have seen 
>>>> nothing but growth. Industrialization started around 200 years ago in 
>>>> Great Britain and spread shortly after to America and Europe. First by 
>>>> exploiting coal and steam engines, later by oil and petrol engines. Tanks, 
>>>> warplanes, warships as well as normal cars, planes and ships all consume 
>>>> oil. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     Richard Heinberg writes in his book "The End of 
>>>> Growth": "with the fossil fuel revolution of the past century and a half, 
>>>> we have seen economic growth at a speed and scale unprecedented in all of 
>>>> human history. We harnessed the energies of coal, oil, and natural gas to 
>>>> build and operate cars, trucks, highways, airports, airplanes, and 
>>>> electric grids - all the esential features of modern industrial society. 
>>>> Through the one-time-only process of extracting and burning hundreds of 
>>>> millions of years worth of chemically stored sunlight, we built what 
>>>> appeared (for a brief, shining moment) to be a perpetual-growth machine. 
>>>> We learned to take what was in fact an extraordinary situation for 
>>>> granted. It became normal [...] During the past 150 years, expanding 
>>>> access to cheap and abundar fossil fuels enabled rapid economic expansion 
>>>> at an average rate of about three percent per year; economic planners 
>>>> began to take this situain for granted. Financial systems 
>>>>                     internalized the expectation of growth as a promise of 
>>>> returns on investments." 
>>>> 
>>>>                     
>>>> https://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book 
>>>> 
>>>>                     Heinberg argues the time of cheap and abundant fossil 
>>>> fuels has come to an end. There 1.5 billion cars in the world which 
>>>> consume oil and produce CO2. Resources are depleted while pollution and 
>>>> population have reached all time highs. It is true that humans are 
>>>> innovative and ingenious, especially in times of scarcity, necessity and 
>>>> need, and we are able to find replacements for depleted resources, but 
>>>> Heinberg argues in his book "Peak Everything: that "in a finite world, the 
>>>> number of possible replacements is also finite". For example we were able 
>>>> to replace the whale oil by petroleum, but finding a replacement for 
>>>> petroleum is much harder. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     https://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/peak-everything 
>>>> 
>>>>                     Without oil no army would move, traffic would cease, 
>>>> no container or cruise ship would be able to go anywhere and therefore 
>>>> international trade and tourism would stop. On the bright side no more 
>>>> plastic and CO2 pollution either. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     In his book "End of Growth" Heinberg mentions 
>>>> "transition towns" as a path towards a more sustainable society and an 
>>>> economy which is not based on fossil-fuels. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     
>>>> https://donellameadows.org/archives/rob-hopkins-my-town-in-transition/ 
>>>> 
>>>>                     French author Victor Hugo wrote 200 years ago that 
>>>> "the paradise of the rich is made out of the hell of the poor". If rich 
>>>> people start to realize this and help to find a way to a more sustainable, 
>>>> livable society it would be a start. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     -J. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     -------- Original message -------- 
>>>> 
>>>>                     From: Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> 
>>>> 
>>>>                     Date: 5/31/25 5:46 AM (GMT+01:00) 
>>>> 
>>>>                     To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group 
>>>> <[email protected]> 
>>>> 
>>>>                     Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Limits to Growth 
>>>> 
>>>>                     I’ve always loved the Simon-Ehrlich bet story—two 
>>>> clever guys betting on the future of the planet. Ehrlich lost the bet, but 
>>>> the debate still runs circles today. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     https://ourworldindata.org/simon-ehrlich-bet 
>>>> 
>>>>                     This article nails it: over the long term, prices 
>>>> mostly go down, not up, as innovation kicks in. We don’t "run out" of 
>>>> resources—we get better at using them. Scarcity shifts, but human 
>>>> creativity shifts faster. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     The Limits to Growth folks had good intentions, but 
>>>> the real limit seems to be how fast we can adapt and rethink. And so far, 
>>>> we’re doing okay—messy, uneven, but okay. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     Turns out, betting against human ingenuity is the real 
>>>> risky business. 
>>>> 
>>>>                     On Fri, 30 May 2025 at 21:51, steve smith 
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>                         REC - 
>>>> 
>>>>                         Very timely...  I did a deep dive/revisit (also 
>>>> met the seminal work in college in the 70s) into Limits to Growth and 
>>>> World3 before the Stockholm workshop on Climate (and other existential 
>>>> threats) Complexity Merle wrangled in 2019....  and was both impressed and 
>>>> disappointed. Rockstrom and folks were located right across the water from 
>>>> us where we met but to my knowledge didn't engage... their work was very 
>>>> complementary but did not feel as relevant to me then as it does now. 
>>>> 
>>>>                         In the following interview, I felt he began to 
>>>> address many of the things I (previously) felt were lacking in their 
>>>> framework previoiusly.  It was there all the time I'm sure, I just didn't 
>>>> see it and I think they were not ready to talk as broadly of implications 
>>>> 5 years ago as they are now? 
>>>> 
>>>>                             https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6_3mOgvrN4 
>>>> 
>>>>                         Did anyone notice the swiss village inundated by 
>>>> debris and meltwater from the glacier collapse uphill?   Signs of the 
>>>> times or "business as usual"? 
>>>> 
>>>>                         - SAS 
>>>> 
>>>>                         On 5/30/25 12:16 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>>                             
>>>> https://thenextwavefutures.wordpress.com/2025/05/20/limits-to-growth-was-right-about-overshoot-and-collapse-new-data/
>>>> 
>>>>                             I remember the Limits to Growth from my 
>>>> freshman year in college.  Now Hackernews links to the above in which some 
>>>> people argue that we've achieved the predicted overshoot for the business 
>>>> as usual scenario and the subsequent collapse begins now.  Enjoy the peak 
>>>> of human technological development.
>> 
> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... 
> --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
> 
> 
> *Attachments:*
>  • OpenPGP_0xD5BAF94F88AFFA63.asc
>  • OpenPGP_signature.asc
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... 
--- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-..
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Reply via email to