能源、气候与材料2022sciencedirect.com
现代性与行星边界不相容：面向未来的 PLAN
Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future
进阶 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：行星边界与生物物理极限、能源转型基础、去增长与可持续性辩论
导读
这篇发表在 Energy Research & Social Science 上的论文主张：以化石燃料为基础、追求持续增长的现代性无法与地球的生物物理极限相容，因此需要一套面向未来的替代方案（作者称之为 PLAN）。论文关注的不是渐进改良，而是如何在避免系统性崩溃的前提下重构社会。
HN 关注点：HN 读者争论的焦点是：这种“极限/去增长”论述究竟是先见之明，还是又一次失败了的马尔萨斯式预言。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 3 补充 1
补充两个极端都不可取，应走“管护地球”的中间路线，同时正视能源转型所需的巨量 материальный 开采。
我觉得其中一些担忧说得很准。论文问：怎样才能把灾难性失败或子系统崩溃的风险降到最低？而最坏情况可能危及科学与人类知识的保存。现在似乎有两个极端：一边是去增长与马尔萨斯主义，几乎带优生学色彩，剥夺数十亿人过上欧美生活水平的机会；另一边是傲慢的否认式扩张主义，天真愚蠢，无视人类确实拥有行星尺度的力量。那种把自己想象成宇宙中无关紧要的微尘的同一种思维，也会导致否认我们这个物种能影响自己所在的生物圈。这里缺少的是背景认知、物质保障，以及培育和平与互助的文化。我认为存在一条中间道路：承认我们需要有所管护，需要在人类参与的前提下进行系统层面的思考，把地球经营成一个可持续的系统——不仅能供养我们，还能让我们繁荣并享受存在的奇迹。我们得盘清楚哪些做法行不通，并推动可再生能源、高效的人类生活、身边环境的美感（而不只是远处的自然保护区）取得长期成功。同时必须正视：为了制造电池和太阳能板等等，我们需要开采大量材料。
c54查看英文原文
I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge? It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our american/european standard of living. The other is naive and stupid and ignores the fact that we humans are capable of wielding planetwide power. The same strain of thinking that lets someone imagine himself as a tiny speck inconsequential to the cosmos, leads to denial that our species can affect the biosphere we live in. There’s a lack of context and of material security and of a culture of cultivating peace and mutual support. I think there’s a middle ground which acknowledges our need for stewardship, for human-in-the-loop systems level thinking about how we can garden our planet into a sustainable system that is not only able to support us but also helps us to thrive and to enjoy in the miracle of existence. We have to take stock of what we’re doing that isn’t working, and push for long term success in renewables, efficient human living, beauty in our proximate environments (not just faraway nature preserves). And we have to reckon with needing to mine huge amounts of materials in order to manufacture things like batteries and solar panels to make all this happen. Ultimately I think we’ll continue to make progress in exactly these goals and it’s important to not lose hope, and to try to positively affect those around you (especially young folks, children are the future).
质疑历史上类似的极限预测屡次被技术与生产率进步推翻，扩大极限优于预防性紧缩。
上世纪 70 年代也有人做过类似预测，但新的能源来源和生产率的提升让那些预测落空了。当然，极限总有一天会到来（除非我们能扩张到其他星球），但如何应对更像是政治问题而非科学问题。我个人认为，像过去那样尝试扩大极限，比抢先采取紧缩措施、把自己限制在估算出的极限之内更有吸引力。
jeffreyrogers查看英文原文
Similar things were predicted in the 70s but new sources of energy and improvements in productivity invalidated those predictions. Obviously at some point limits will kick in (unless we can expand to other planets) but what to do about that is more of a political question than a scientific one. I personally think it is more appealing to attempt expanding the limits, as we've done in the past, than to pre-emptively adopt austerity measures to live within estimated limits.
质疑论文的情绪化修辞让人觉得作者预设了去增长立场，并未真正权衡所有方案。
我认为作者们加入诸如“从这个角度看，后代很可能把过去两个世纪称为化石燃料时代而非工业革命——强调一种如今已枯竭的资源的关键重要性，而不是对人类创新的自我陶醉式庆祝”这类评判性、情绪化的措辞，反而损害了他们自己的事业。这暗示他们并未考察所有可选方案，并且认为支持去增长意识形态是一种道德义务。
meany查看英文原文
I think the authors do a disservice to their cause with the inclusion of judgmental, emotional rhetoric such as sentences like: “ From this perspective, it seems likely that future generations will label the past two centuries as the Fossil Fuel Age rather than the Industrial Revolution—emphasizing the critical importance of a now-depleted resource over a self-flattering celebration of human innovation” It suggests they’re not looking at all options to solve our problems, and that there is a moral imperative to support a de-growth ideology.
质疑马尔萨斯式预言历史记录很差，自我设限本身才是生存风险。
这种马尔萨斯式思维的历史记录很糟糕。想象一下，每当一小撮“专家”宣称我们要毁掉地球，我们就大幅改变技术进步的方向，会是什么后果。我不是主张对环境不负责任，但这种自我设限的信念体系会给人类带来巨大的生存风险。这场争论中哪一方正确并不显然。哪怕我们只是从当前的指数增长放缓到线性增长，一代人之内地球上的生活大概就会很糟糕。
gandalfgeek查看英文原文
This kind of Malthusian thinking has a horrible track record. Imagine if we drastically altered the course of technological progress every time a cabal of "experts" declares that we're going to destroy the planet. I'm not arguing that we should be reckless with the environment, but there are massive existential risks to humanity with this kind of self-limiting belief system. It's not obvious that one side of the argument is right. If we even slowed down to linear growth from our current exponential path, life on Earth would probably suck within a generation.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2022Hacker News 讨论帖151 分 · 252 评
同领域还值得读
一种工程化 PET 解聚酶用于分解和回收塑料瓶
An engineered PET depolymerase to break down and recycle plastic bottles
通过蛋白质工程改造 PET 解聚酶，使其在较高温度下仍保持活性，从而更有效地把废弃 PET 瓶解聚为单体；随后再将单体重新聚合成符合工业强度、延展性和色泽标准的水瓶，展示了实验室…
能源、气候与材料2020 · 250 分 · 85 评专业 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选直射阳光下低于环境温度的被动辐射制冷 (2014)
Passive radiative cooling below ambient airtemperature under direct sun (2014)
这篇 Nature 论文（斯坦福 Fan 组，2014）展示了在直射阳光下实现低于环境气温的被动辐射制冷：用高反射率（约 95% 以上）的背面反射层配合二氧化硅等选择性发射结构，…
能源、气候与材料2021 · 145 分 · 66 评进阶 · 约 40 分钟编辑精选出现超出人类耐受极限的高温高湿天气
The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance (2020)
研究了全球范围内湿球温度（wet-bulb temperature）的观测记录，发现某些沿海地区已出现接近或超过 35°C 人类生存理论上限的高温高湿天气，比气候模型预测的时间更…
能源、气候与材料2020 · 570 分 · 509 评入门 · 约 45 分钟硬化木材：替代钢材与塑料的可再生材料
Hardened wood as a renewable alternative to steel and plastic
这篇发表在 Matter 上的论文提出一种“硬化木材”工艺：通过去除木质素并压缩等处理，使木材的硬度、强度大幅提升，号称可作为钢材和塑料的可再生替代品（据报道甚至可制成能切牛排的…
能源、气候与材料2021 · 315 分 · 274 评入门 · 约 45 分钟通过针对全球高污染电厂来减少 CO2 排放
Reducing CO2 emissions by targeting the world's hyper-polluting power plants
研究如何通过针对全球高污染发电厂来减少二氧化碳排放。
能源、气候与材料2021 · 289 分 · 219 评进阶 · 约 25 分钟