Post #1944371

From an engineering perspective, this is anathema to engineering. You've made the system which creates systems less efficient. At some stage, you maybe start to chop away at the efficiency of the efficient things we build, same as cars need an input, so do efficient things need an input: Engineers! Without that, there's less sustainability. OK that was the epiphany but now that I wrote it down it feels like maybe it isn't coming across. We're in a domain where we're talking about purely hypothetical things, symbols and trust and connection. It is a hypothetical space which is fractured and ruined by skullduggery. No one is building a "thing", but in order for engineers to build things which are sustainable, efficient, which are "systems", the entire job of the engineer, their raison d’etre, you need a broader ecology of trust, standards, and regulation. But capitalists say regulation is bad. They say it slows people down. This is the opposite of true, hopefully you can see that based on the argument. Actually, we're giving up sustainability for nothing. We literally don't gain anything (other than a few rich guys raped some children). This also ties into degrowth. Green Growth is the idea that you just keep doing a skullduggery and magically efficient systems will start to exist, but that cannot be true. Degrowth says "stop", and when you start to concentrate on efficiency, on actually reducing, then you actually gain something. You get systems. These systems start to connect. They become more powerful the more they connect to each other. It's an ecosystem. You can plug into it. There is already an ecosystem with plants and animals and energy exchange and life and death and our true destiny as engineers is to plug into it because systems don't work in a vacuum. This is why bicycles are great, because they tie into human motion. Hope that makes sense. 4/4