Technogaianism, where should I start?

[SolarpunkFan]

I consider myself a technogaian (for those unfamiliar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technogaianism).

I think it's a good philosophy and I want to help it out, but I just don't know where to begin.

I've been thinking about various possibilities; starting a civic group, maybe even creating a co-op to develop and market the requisite technologies.

Anyone have any pointers on where/how I should/can start?

[Starglider]

This is entirely dependent on your personal skillset, resources (financial, contacts, reputation) and academic/career stage.

[SolarpunkFan]

This is entirely dependent on your personal skillset, resources (financial, contacts, reputation) and academic/career stage.

Hmm... things might be difficult. I consider myself creative and a bit resourceful, but those are pretty vague skills. I don't have much in the way of resources and while I'm out of college, I have no job at the moment.

[Broomstick]

Is there a particular area of the environment (by which I mean the entire environment people live in)?

For example, are you interested in sustainable food practices? Maybe small-scale hydroponics utilizing recycled materials so people can grow their own food instead of relying on transporting fresh food from other continents during the winter? (I've done a bit of that myself) Or, heck, even the venerable practice of composting household waste to use as fertilizer in a backyard garden. You could experiment with that and blog about it as a way of disseminating information.

I've recently experimented with more natural cleaning solutions utilizing things like vinegar, ammonia, and alcohol, which are less toxic than many common cleaning chemicals, have been used a long time, and are all potentially made from renewable sources rather petrochemicals. I got my recipes from the internet and other people interested in such things.

There are people who manufacture their own biodiesel.

Or you could specialize in researching and writing about all of these things, so you work as an information clearinghouse.

These are all things you can do that don't require massive investment or specialized degrees that could dovetail with technogaianism. Start getting involved on the internet (blogging, YouTube, etc.) and you'll wind up networking with other people of similar interests.

[SolarpunkFan]

Thanks Broomstick.

I now have a blog up and running.

[Purple]

Given that you named your first post on that blog in a very ominous way I have a question. Just what kind of sacrifice does this belief system expect from its adherents?

[Broomstick]

I have my own ideas of what technogaianism would require, but I want to hear what the OP has to say first.

[Raw Shark]

Given that you named your first post on that blog in a very ominous way I have a question. Just what kind of sacrifice does this belief system expect from its adherents?

I sacrificed a promising new relationship with a very fun and libidinous granola girl over it once. One little voice inside me was saying, "Don't start a fight over what she just said about fission. You can persuade her, over time," but then the louder, combative asshole voice inside me said, "OH NO YOU DIDN'T..." and gloves hit the ground.

[Purple]

I would have just shrugged and let her believe what ever crap she wants to believe in. I mean, it's like dating any other religious person. As long as she doesn't force you to partake in any rituals or try and convert you all the bloody time leave her to her silliness.

But that relates to what I am asking here. This person is recruiting for a belief system. And typically those come with the explicit demand that the adherents give something up for nothing in return. Be that dietary restrictions, time spent in church or a drop in quality of life in some other way. So I want to hear this guys sales pitch. Is he like all the others and just trying to sell us a life style that demands sacrifice for the sake of vague belief related ideals or does he actually have something worth talking about?

[SolarpunkFan]

Given that you named your first post on that blog in a very ominous way I have a question. Just what kind of sacrifice does this belief system expect from its adherents?

Depends on what you mean by "sacrifice". Technogaianism is an ideology that states we should use technology (both current and emerging) to repair Earth's environment.

[Purple]

Given that you named your first post on that blog in a very ominous way I have a question. Just what kind of sacrifice does this belief system expect from its adherents?

Depends on what you mean by "sacrifice". Technogaianism is an ideology that states we should use technology (both current and emerging) to repair Earth's environment.

- How much does that cost me out of pocket?
- How much does that cost me in quality of life?

In no uncertain terms if you want to sell this to me you have to prove to me that once the end math is calculated I will come out profiting in terms these rather than paying. A rational man does not give into ideologies that do not make his living standard go up.

[Crazedwraith]

I imagine adherents don't want so much a better standard of living, as to not have the whole world's standard of living crash and burn along with the environment.

[Broomstick]

Look, we know Purple doesn't give a fuck about other people or anything else. He's exactly the sort to shoot the last flock of dodos on Earth for dinner because he couldn't be bothered to walk a half a mile to the shepherd's house for some mutton instead. I mean, fuck it if there are no more dodos, he's hungry, right? That's more important than an entire species or what his neighbors might need to survive tomorrow.

[K. A. Pital]

A rational man does not give into ideologies that do not make his living standard go up.

A rational altruist would, a rational egoist wouldn't. Both could be rational.

[Purple]

I am just saying that as a rule environmentalist initiatives tend to be of the sacrifice something get nothing back kind. And that the best they usually do is cite vague and usually unsupported claims that this sort of thing actually helps. You know, the kind of stupid that tells you switching your lights off for one hour a year is going to save the planet even if you keep your AC on the whole time.* Or the kind that tells you to go buy an electric car without bothering to address that the electricity comes from burning fossil fuels anyway so you're just shifting the pollution rather than getting rid of it. So you end up paying more and getting less all the while the environment still gets equally fucked. And all in the name of making pointless token gestures to demonstrate how green you are in a farcical display of virtue signaling.

But I am willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt rather than immediately lumping him up with those. So I want him to present his case. Who knows, maybe he has an idea that can actually make an impact for a change. Worst case scenario for him is that he gets some practice in preaching which he wanted from this thread anyway.

---

* This event is an anecdote and not an exaggeration.

[Broomstick]

Well, here's an example of an environmentally beneficial act that is win-win:

Recycle your aluminum cans. It takes far less energy to recycle old aluminum than to refine more aluminum from ore. There are places that are willing to give you cash for the aluminum you have that you no longer want. So - you get money for what is, to you, garbage; guys who refine/recycle aluminum get a source material cheaper to obtain/use than raw ore; the general public (including you) get new aluminum products for less than they might otherwise cost.

Of course, this doesn't work for every possible item, which is why you need to do your homework.

Yes, often "ecological" measures are bullshit feel-good actions that don't actually benefit anyone, but that doesn't mean they all are. Part of the "long hard road" mentioned in the OP's blog is dealing with closed-minded, selfish cynics like Purple.

[Purple]

Well, here's an example of an environmentally beneficial act that is win-win:

Yea, that sort of thing is the smart kind of thing.

Of course, this doesn't work for every possible item, which is why you need to do your homework.

Which is why I am asking the OP and not you. I want to see what kind of homework he has been doing.

Yes, often "ecological" measures are bullshit feel-good actions that don't actually benefit anyone, but that doesn't mean they all are. Part of the "long hard road" mentioned in the OP's blog is dealing with closed-minded, selfish cynics like Purple.

Than by all means allow the man to have some practice against me.

[Broomstick]

We're all waiting for him to show up. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with calling you out on your selfish, sociopathic tendencies.

[Purple]

We're all waiting for him to show up. Meanwhile, I see nothing wrong with calling you out on your selfish, sociopathic tendencies.

Well not explicitly. But between my often times lacking grasp of expressing my self concisely in the english language and admitted personal evil and selfishness you're hardly revealing something new. As for me, I am happy in the knowledge that it is better to be openly selfish than hiding in a closet made up of virtue signaling. And frankly there are far, far more people like that than there are like me. Where as the world would be a better place if it was the other way around.

[madd0ct0r]

um Purple, Broomstick, I lay 70-80% odds that SolarpunkFan is female.

But what you say is interesting. We had a thread a few years back on Moral Foundation Theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.
Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating.
Liberty: the loathing of tyranny; opposite of oppression.
Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal.
Authority or respect: obeying tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion.
Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation.

As the most bluntly sociopathic poster you aren't going to put many points into CARE or FAIR. Would you care to divvy up 12 points between the other four moral foundations so we can phrase the argument to you?

[Broomstick]

Well, OK, Purple, I give you a point or two for brutal honesty because at least people know what they're dealing with.

Since we're still waiting on the OP here's a personal example of sacrifice for ecological purposes explained for you in purely selfish fashion:

I like most seafood. However, there are some types of seafood I no longer eat because they are being fished out of existence. So I forgo those types of seafood in order to eat seafood that is sustainably caught/farmed with minimal damage to the environment, because I'm hoping to be around for another half century and anticipate needing to eat then, too. This requires that actual food exists and is not toxic. While my individual buying practices are of insignificant importance, if I can recruit others to the same behavior pattern it will (I hope) induce changes that will ensure we continue to have supplies of healthy seafood in the future, I future I hope to be in myself.

(Note that by "seafood" I mean not just animals but also seaweed, which I also consume in several varieties. That's in addition to its usefulness as feedstock for various food additives and other processes.)

[Purple]

um Purple, Broomstick, I lay 70-80% odds that SolarpunkFan is female.

To be honest it does not matter to me. I don't really care for gender much.

As the most bluntly sociopathic poster you aren't going to put many points into CARE or FAIR. Would you care to divvy up 12 points between the other four moral foundations so we can phrase the argument to you?

I'd have to study that for a while before I could do that. And that will take time. Time I don't have right now. But I'll try and put my point as concisely as I can here. Also, the following refers to any and all issues of a global scale such as war, hunger, enviromental issues, peak oil, asteroid impact, you name it. Thus it is going to be a bit of indirect.

- I am cynical, honest and hate posers. And it is my base assumption that people are by nature bad. Also, my trust does not come cheap.

- I absolutely detest the kind of people who champion causes only so that they can get a rise out of showing off how progressive or good they are in order to get social points. An example of this are actions such as Earth Day. It isn't doing anything. You are just doing it to feel good about your self. To quote South Park "We did our good deed for the day. Now god won't mind us having sex in your ass."

- I have zero patience or tolerance for wide eyed idealists who define everything through what ever morality system they are using rather than cold, hard facts. If you think a problem exists than present your argument for that. I am willing to hear it. But if your argument can be summed up as an appeal to morality, god or emotions than don't waste my time. I am not in the business of buying into ideals.

- I have zero patience or tolerance for people who identify problems and think that's enough to get me to buy what ever it is they are selling. Doubly so if they are policy makers. If you have a plan to fix the problems you are talking about than by all means let's hear it. And I will decide if I think that plan is good and practical or not. Or if I am not qualified to do so (as I am often not) than I will defer to experts in the field and their judgment.

But if you don't have one at all or you have a plan that can be summed up as step three profit don't waste my time.

- I don't buy into the whole idea of individual actions making a difference and small scale do it your self solution to world problems. There is no such thing as a snowball effect here. My individual actions are newer going to be world changing. And neither will me recruiting 5, 50 or even 500 other people. This is self demonstrably true on account of the unavoidable fact that if the problems of our world were that easy to solve we would have solved them already. Big problems demand big solutions. And problems on a world scale demand solutions on a world scale.

- I don't buy into what you might describe as "bottom up" solutions. As in, a spontaneous popular action by a group of people without the direct and explicit support of a higher government body. The problems of this world will not be solved by the actions of the masses (unless you can literally recruit billions of people) but by systemic decisions of our governments and supergovernmental bodies such as the UN. They are not going to come in the form of someone cherry picking what fish to buy but by international conferences, treaties and UN resolutions. Our part in this is not to spontaneously act out with meaningless gestures but to vote into power political forces to advance those agendas.

I know this too is probably not ideally clear and is a bit rambley. So I would ask you to read it and think about it before sniping.

[Broomstick]

The notion that grassroots and bottom-up activism never works is contradicted by:

movements to unionize workers - almost universally opposed by the governments in power when they started

US civil rights movement

Acceptance of gay rights and marriage in many locations

None of the above were sponsored by governments, in fact, frequently opposed by them for long periods. All of them were bottom-up change.

Does it always work? No. But it can work.

[SolarpunkFan]

um Purple, Broomstick, I lay 70-80% odds that SolarpunkFan is female.

Actually I'm a guy.

To answer your question Purple, technogaianism (and bright-green environmentalism in general) doesn't necessitate a drop in living standards. Technogaianism uses technology to repair the environment, but how?

One problem to deal with is phosphorus runoff and depletion, but the technologies outlined here can be implemented without a drop in standard of living.

Another example would be genetic engineering of organisms. In this article for example, GMO plants are actually associated with a reduction in pesticide use (I can't seem to find information in that article about specific yields, but I'm assuming the yields are roughly the same as with control groups).

Nuclear reactors can also be a part of technogaianism. Considering it would reduce coal fired plants, it would be an obvious choice for large-scale energy needs. And considering the flurry of research in several different fusion projects (http://www.helionenergy.com/ , http://www.generalfusion.com/ , http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/produc ... usion.html , http://www.trialphaenergy.com/), we might (might) be pleasantly surprised by having working fusion reactors sometime in the next 10-15 years. Such an energy source would probably raise living standards.

When I talked about the "long hard road ahead" I meant countering the anti-scientific greens.

Sorry for my late reply folks.

[Purple]

Does it always work? No. But it can work.

In essence, successful bottom up movements are not movements as such but the boiling over of social tensions that than gets recruited into and channeled by a leading group that generates a movement out of that for good or ill. And such a model is as a result mostly only really applicable to issues that directly negatively effect a large number of people in the here and now. And only after a relatively long period of stewing. So they tend to be self recruiting. Food riots don't need someone online to tell me that I haven't eaten in a week. That's the kind of thing I'd know about.

Because of all this bottom up movements tend to lend them self poorly to issues that are related to unimmediate problems like global warming or peak oil or what ever. And frankly, it is my opinion that if things have gotten to the point that there is a bottom up movement I feel the need to join that means democracy and society in general has failed us.

And so if you want to recruit me into such a movement through means other than spontaneous recruitment I have described above you have to make one hell of a case.

...

That sort of thing I am mostly in agreement with. Although to be honest I am not a fan of the kind of optimism you exhibit.

In particular, fusion is still not a thing. And whilst we should invest money into making it a thing we should not count our chickens before they hatch. By the time we have a functioning fusion power plant (not just reactor but actual production worthy power plant) the environment might well be too fucked to fix. That's why you'll see me constantly whining about the annoying idiots who oppose fission plants. Let's focus on what we can do today. And if in twenty years something better comes along all the better.

And as for GMO's my stance is the same as the EU on this. There is another way to keep pesticide use down and that's organic food. I find that much better overall because it means you know exactly what you are consuming and you don't have corporations owning patents on essential food ingredients. It's not like the west is not producing a massive food surplus anyway so that we absolutely need to find ways to keep production high.