It used to be that the only way for humanity to grow -- and progress -- was
through destroying the environment. Sure, the Industrial Revolution brought
about the growth of our economies, our population, our prosperity; but it also
led to our extracting more resources from the planet, more pollution, and some
nightmarish human conditions as well. But is this interplay between the two --
of human growth vs. environment, of protection vs. destruction -- really a
zero-sum game? Even if it were true in history, is it true today? How about
for developing economies around the world today -- do they have to go through
an extractive phase first before entering a protective one... or can they skip
that phase altogether through better technology (the way they leapt to
mobile)?
And if capitalism is not responsible for environmental degradation, than who
or what is? Where does technology come in, and where doesn't it -- if you
believe we already have the answers to saving the environment? Marc Andreessen
and Sonal Chokshi interview MIT economist
http://ide.mit.edu
/about-us/people/andrew-mcafee" target="new">Andrew McAfee about all this and more, given his
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/More-from-Less/Andrew-
McAfee/9781982103576" target="new">new
book,
More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned
to Prosper Using Fewer Resources -- and What Happens Next.
So what
does happen next? From nuclear power to dematerialization to Tesla
and the next cleantech revolution (or not), this episode of the a16z Podcast
brings a different perspective to an important discussion around taking care
of our planet... and also ensuring human progress through the spread of human
capital and technology.
Read more
It used to be that the only way for humanity to grow -- and progress -- was
through destroying the environment. Sure, the Industrial Revolution brought
about the growth of our economies, our population, our prosperity; but it also
led to our extracting more resources from the planet, more pollution, and some
nightmarish human conditions as well. But is this interplay between the two --
of human growth vs. environment, of protection vs. destruction -- really a
zero-sum game? Even if it were true in history, is it true today? How about
for developing economies around the world today -- do they have to go through
an extractive phase first before entering a protective one... or can they skip
that phase altogether through better technology (the way they leapt to
mobile)?
And if capitalism is not responsible for environmental degradation, than who
or what is? Where does technology come in, and where doesn't it -- if you
believe we already have the answers to saving the environment? Marc Andreessen
and Sonal Chokshi interview MIT economist
http://ide.mit.edu
/about-us/people/andrew-mcafee" target="new">Andrew McAfee about all this and more, given his
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/More-from-Less/Andrew-
McAfee/9781982103576" target="new">new
book,
More from Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned
to Prosper Using Fewer Resources -- and What Happens Next.
So what
does happen next? From nuclear power to dematerialization to Tesla
and the next cleantech revolution (or not), this episode of the a16z Podcast
brings a different perspective to an important discussion around taking care
of our planet... and also ensuring human progress through the spread of human
capital and technology.
Read less