[jc6]

Not only that, the rate of change is increasing or speeding up. Brains are not really capable of handling constant change.

There is much more to learn. There are more unknowns. And there is much more competition.

If you take competitive sports and look at size of support stuff its ridiculous these days compared to 20 years back. There is coach, physio, shrink, nutritionist, biz manager, social media manager etc

So now extrapolate and imagine what things will look like 10 years or 20 years from now on the that trend line. Its just not sustainable.

People have to think about rate of change in the environment that surrounds us.

[nonrandomstring]

> Its just not sustainable.

Everything feels like that all the time. And yet we constantly find ourselves 10 years down the line, with years of exponential growth piled on top, and some post-Malthusian explanation of how "actually it is sustainable if we just keep pushing through and believe in progress".

I'm not saying this or that _is_ sustainable, just that the point people declare it "unsustainable" is often only the beginning. It's a (mis)perception David Goggins speaks of a lot - about just how much deeper an organism can dig in crisis, or how low our pain/risk thresholds are set. Maybe we unconsciously factor that in.

Personally I think that's reckless and we are better heeding warning signs. But if we'd done that in 1970 climate change wouldn't be a thing, right.

[vouaobrasil]

Well, so far we have proof of unsustainability: we've already raised the extinction rate of species hundreds of times the background rate. So, already unsustainable.

[vouaobrasil]

Very useful comment: the rate of change is just as important as the nature of the change. Hence why the change through evolution in the biosphere is generally much more stable that the change brought upon us by technological innovation.