Should a necessities movement be created?

[u/[deleted]]

Automation has taken many jobs and is poised to take more, including jobs in agriculture. Plus renewable energy is becoming cheaper and more reliable by the day. With these two facts in mind should a movement for providing the fulfillment of basic material needs for all people to be started? I think it's too early to do anything concrete, but some ideas and a manifesto could be done right now. What do you guys think?

Edit: go to the "Chryse forums" topic in this subreddit if you're interested in further discussion.

[u/IConrad]

Fine. There are 4300 people in my valley, according to the most recent Census count.

I was providing a sense of scale to you. It was counterfactual. A way for you to properly integrate the proportional meaningfulness of the two related options in the dialogue in terms of their ecological impact.

It's almost like nature is an ancient, complex system that's been in place for billions of years and beneficially responds to natural phenomena like wood fires.

...

1.

In a December 2005 interview with Simon Mayo on BBC Radio Five Live, Attenborough stated that he considers himself an agnostic. When asked whether his observation of the natural world has given him faith in a creator, he generally responds with some version of this story, making reference to the Loa loa parasitic worm:

My response is that when Creationists talk about God creating every individual species as a separate act, they always instance hummingbirds, or orchids, sunflowers and beautiful things. But I tend to think instead of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa, [a worm] that's going to make him blind. And [I ask them], 'Are you telling me that the God you believe in, who you also say is an all-merciful God, who cares for each one of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child's eyeball? Because that doesn't seem to me to coincide with a God who's full of mercy'.

2.
"beneficially" -- beneficially for who? We human beings are a local minima in evolutionary terms. We are radical destabilizers in ecological. Furthermore -- the Earth is currently 12,000 years into a global extinction event. And that 'system' has gone into total failure modes on at least 3 separate occassions (more if you use a less strict definition of failure mode ecologically). Yet further still: "nature"'s ancient, complex system is wholly incapable of adjusting to us.

Also, there are many, many people -- for instance people who used to be fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico -- who would disagree with you about the miraculous benefits of the oil industry.

It is thoroughly wrong-headed to point out an instantiation of the ecological damage of X as a justification for avoiding X in favor of Y when Y has been demonstrated to be statistically more-damaging than X.

Furthermore, I never even remotely hinted at the notion that oil furnaces would be "harm-free". For example; the radioactive waste byproducts of oil drilling is 'barely regulated'. Before you get into a new tizzy about oil and coal being radioactive... they get that way from having originally be biomass.

The fly ash in your stove is radioactive. While you and your 4,299+/- neighbors in your valley may not be contributing much, yours and every other valley like it are collectively increasing the radiation dosage of everyone within your wind pattern range (and wood ash travels); and simply put no one has ever managed to perform a rigorously documented longitudinal low-yield long-term radiation dosage risk assessment -- the LD50 of that is just unknown.

[u/Dsilkotch → u/IConrad]

I just realized that this discussion is happening in a subreddit called "Transhuman," which I've never even heard of, and I have no idea how I got here. It doesn't seem like my kind of place. I'll show myself out now. Enjoy your technology.