Can Humankind Find a Path To Sustainability?

When my wife and kids are otherwise occupied on the weekend and I’m on my own for the evening without the obligation to cook dinner, I’ve been known to walk uptown to a place with a fabulous Happy Hour, have a drink or two, and strike up a conversation or two with strangers.  Tonight I met a very bright guy from London and his wife, a writer of historic novels (great find!); we talked for some time about the trajectory of the human species on planet Earth (great topic!).  How was I possibly lucky enough to come across these people?

They both surprised me with their insights here, especially the guy when he said, “I honestly don’t think we have the intelligence to survive the challenges we face.”

I’m not sure it’s intelligence; to me, it’s more a matter of politics.  Intellectually, we can deal with the issues of overpopulation, over-consumption of resources, climate change, pollution, etc.  In fact, the technology surrounding renewable energy and its economics has brought us to the point where the cost of supplying humankind with energy from the sun is tantalizingly close to the cost of burning fossil fuels.  But do we have the political will to even understand and confront this stuff, let alone do something about it?

I reminded my new-found friends that it’s also a matter of DNA.  The present-day human race is descended from the hunter-gatherers who, a hundred thousand years ago, figured out that whatever worked last year was on the agenda again this year.  We have no background in coming together and working out a plan for change for the future.  I told them solemnly, “That type of response won’t ‘get it done’ in the 21st Century.”

So, as the Londoner, said, “That’s why God gave us Happy Hour.”

“Yes,” as I hurriedly tried to excuse myself, “Until some guy like me comes along and ruins it…”

Tagged with: , , , ,
One comment on “Can Humankind Find a Path To Sustainability?
  1. fireofenergy says:

    Yes, I agree that we have the tech, just not the political will.
    We have wind, solar, batteries (and other storage) and molten salt nuclear as the major options for powering a planetary civilization. Locally, people should address the ones that are good for them, but renewables will still need NG back up, until a cheap utility battery automation is “allowed” or is indeed cheap enough to compete with other, new power plants.

    I believe that LFTR is the best way to power on a “Kardashian level 1” scale (Michio Kaku defines K1,K2 and K3). However, I also know that renewable energy and its storage is very close to being able to compete. Speaking of LFTR, it is not “allowed” either. Though fear of nuclear may be used as an excuse for its life threatening delays, it is actually, lack of ways to profit as greatly as from coal and uranium.
    Just as (the truth of) the inherent instability of excess CO2 is being used as an attempt to make energy MORE expensive, the truth of inherent instability of conventional nuclear is being used as an excuse to thwart LFTR.

    The REAL threat is excess CO2! It is NOT hundreds of thousands of square miles of solar, or millions of wind turbines. also, there is no threat to the biosphere even if tens of thousands of liquid fluoride thorium reactors were built (because they can’t melt down)!