The nature of employment will change but during the transition phase technological unemployment will be a problem. This will be a problem not because automation, innovation and decentralization are bad, but because of the common attitudes and cultural traditions which people cling onto.
The ecological concerns are legitimate but it is only innovation, automation and technology which can help to mitigate these risks.
Social entrepreneurs understand that growth for the sake of growth is like cancer to the ecosystem. Growth has to be intelligent and beneficial.
I think we can say that society as we know it either must change or the path we are on is unsustainable. DACs, Bitshares, and the decentralization movement are forcing the issue and creating an environment where society must adapt to these innovations faster. The slow rate of social adaptation cannot continue.
Regulators are so afraid that they'd kill innovation rather than let that innovation potentially save the entire ecosystem and global economy. This is because society as we know it now is built up on fear.
Technology isn't going to wait. And the main point which you brought up (the militarization and coming arms race) is unfortunately something I don't see how we can avoid. An arms race is going to happen sooner or later, but if it does happen then hopefully the nature of it wont be as bad as the cold war. Another cold war would be unacceptable and likely lead to our extinction.
A lot more focus and investment should go into protecting the human species from extinction. I'm sure there are a lot of innovative solutions which aren't being applied, areas of science which aren't being researched, out of political rather than economic concerns. Safety concerns don't seem to be on the agenda if you look at the flow of money as a lot of money is put into defense, but that doesn't actually make us safe or free even if that is the selling point.
This will be a problem not because automation, innovation and decentralization are bad, but because of the common attitudes and cultural traditions which people cling onto.
I never said "automation, innovation and decentralization are bad". I highlighted that again at the bottom of the OP.
The ecological concerns are legitimate but it is only innovation, automation and technology which can help to mitigate these risks.
I disagree. I might be wrong about the following and the following might not apply to you. But I guess that this is something we would like to believe. And we do so so we can justify our lifestyle towards ourselves. The human mind has an endless ability to shape our reality to make it congruent with what we do and think in our daily lives and which would be effort-full to change it. That can be applied to a society as a whole as well.
Why would such a theory matter: I think if non of us is professionally involved in theorizing about that specific question ("Is it possible to at least sustain our consumption rates without destroying our ecosystems (further)?") or is practically building those technologies - but even then we are biased - I suspect our bias towards what suits our lifestyle is strong enough to point us to only one side of the answer to that question.
Here is what I know (subjectivity and selection included): A friend of mine is building or better helping to build big and very strong magnets that are needed in wind power plants. You need a very very strong magnet in order to make the wind power plants efficient enough to make a profit with them. You need rare earth elements to make these magnets. To wash them out of the soil you need sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid. If that would be done in an refinery it would be to expensive to compete with others that do it this way: The whole soil dumped into basins in china and mixed with the acids quoted above to seperate what you need from the rest. Those bassins are leaking heavily... I am not even sure if they have a layer that separates the mixture from the ground (would be cheaper to have none). Because some do it everyone does it that way (including Siemens where that friend of mine works). And everyone has to do it like this if the local rulers are not able to limit such harmful behaviour, otherwise Siemens would not be able to compete in the Wind power plants market. I am pretty sure that that (local) authorities make a decent profit allowing this.... Have a look at this!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia-july-dec09-china_12-14/Another example is: Biofuels which we like to perceive as green need more energy to to produce them than they contain in the end:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11053-005-4679-8 ....
Social entrepreneurs understand that growth for the sake of growth is like cancer to the ecosystem. Growth has to be intelligent and beneficial.
Agree. But isn't a system false that does not incentive everyone to act so that growth is intelligent and beneficial?
I think we can say that society as we know it either must change or the path we are on is unsustainable. DACs, Bitshares, and the decentralization movement are forcing the issue and creating an environment where society must adapt to these innovations faster. The slow rate of social adaptation cannot continue.
Regulators are so afraid that they'd kill innovation rather than let that innovation potentially save the entire ecosystem and global economy. This is because society as we know it now is built up on fear.
Technology isn't going to wait. And the main point which you brought up (the militarization and coming arms race) is unfortunately something I don't see how we can avoid. An arms race is going to happen sooner or later, but if it does happen then hopefully the nature of it wont be as bad as the cold war. Another cold war would be unacceptable and likely lead to our extinction.
Agree 100%
No one can say something like this for sure but I am afraid that the 21th century holds more potential for completely destructive conflict than any other before. We had a cold war for no apparent reason, it was fueled only by the fear of the enemy on both sides. Now all that contributed to the conflict of the cold war is still there: Fear of the enemy which is a vicious circle (Krim crisis is not a disaster but something to be worried about in this context). But during the cold war we did not have material reasons for conflict potential: further growing world population AND a decline in natural resources AND growing demand/addiction for material/luxury goods worldwide AND the destruction of ecological systems AND greater unemployment rates...