As someone who grew up in the 1980s, I find very amusing how no one seems to be worried about the nuclear war. Even though NATO is de facto in a war against Russia and could face China as well soon.
Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
131–140 of 311 posts
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#132Reports released by IPCC and other organizations [0] indicate that we have 15 years to take drastic action on the environment. This tracks with the extremely accurate prediction from The Limits to Growth [1] published in 1972. If we do not take action on climate _now_ then _nothing_ is going to matter. We will enter into an irreversible feedback loop that causes human extinction, yet it won't be apparent until it is…
Unfortunately, this argument is no longer convincing. I've been hearing for most of my life, at least the last 40 or so years, that "action is needed now" and "we're 10-15 years away from disaster," which never comes. The doom-predictors' credibility is unfortunately totally shot at this point. We've been "almost beyond the point of no return" for as long as I can remember--it's the Truck Almost Hitting The Pole GIF[…
The study I linked on The Limits of Growth did not predict 15 years. They predicted between 2030 and 2040. The original authors of that study have reasserted just last year that they still believe it to be true. IPCC and the nature study I linked have predicted collapse in the same time frame. So I am not sure the doomers that you are referencing were credible. However, I place my trust in science. The fact that scientists are literally screaming that we are headed towards extinction in the time frame I mentioned, the fact that we have lost 70% of species since 1970, and other data backing up the claims is enough for me to be convinced. I am not sure what it would take for you to be convinced.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#133The biggest problem domain worth pursuing is figuring out fusion. If we can unlock what is effectively limitless power a lot of problems become far more tractable. Everything else is a distraction. We need cheaper and more available power. Every physicist and engineer in the world should probably try dedicating at least one or two month of their life to figuring out fusion. If humanity could pay a trillion dollars to…
We are living a mass extinction right now (that's not a prediction for a future risk, that's a fact that we can observe now). The reason of this mass extinction is cheap, abundant energy: habitat loss comes from there.
Fusion would be great to finish making life on Earth look like surviving on Mars. Is that what you want?
What we need (and will most likely face anyway) is to do less with less. Organise society to live the forced degrowth that is coming, and survive the climate changes that we started and cannot possibly change anymore.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are talking past each other on what is meant by degrowth. Degrowth means not tying the success of nations and people to that of GDP YoY. It is not sustainable. What I mean by degrowth is removing the growth imperative from economy and switching to a sustainable economy. The studies have shown (referenced in Hickel's book) that material consumption goes up with technological innovation. This means that the…
The problem is you swallowed the “capitalism is evil” pill and now you’re confusing everything. But it’s not complicated. GDP is literally ”the total sum of what humans value” (per year). GDP growth is “creating more of what humans value”, and profit is “reward for those who create value”. You can split what humans value into essentials (food, sex, medicine, security, …) and non-essentials (nice car, nice house, nice…
Capitalism is literally evil based on first principles [0]. The fact that you have swallowed the "capitalism is the only thing that is good in this world pill" is the result of 500 years of propaganda.
> Sounds like a good thing! More people getting their needs met.
And less of everything else getting their needs met. It seems like you have a very dualistic view that humans are somehow outside the realm of ecology. Infinite growth is literally impossible in a finite system. And is a core tenet of capitalism. I really don't know what else to tell you at this point.
You are basing all of your arguments on capitalism being the solution to itself, which is the problem.
> As it turns out, people do value nature etc but only after their basic needs are fulfilled.
The problem with capitalism is that once basic needs are met, companies need won't be met - the growth imperative. Profit means taking more than what you give. It is the sole idea of what capitalism is built on. And it has appropriated nature as a means to this end. So what happens then? Artificial scarcity, more manipulation, more marketing all to sell people what they don't need.
It seems to me that you have latched onto an idea, and you will argue anything to fit that narrative. I have no idea where these arguments are coming from that degrowth means that people are not getting their needs met. Do you have sources to back up any of what you are saying? It just seems so synthetic to me.
Degrowth is removing the profit motive for the sole benefit of reinvestment and accumulation to continue growing. It does not mean that the market economy goes away. It does not mean that people do not have their needs met. It means that capitalism as a religion is finally put to an end. That we are able to subsist on finite resources instead of eliminating everything that we depend on for survival. And to use your beloved's terminology, a (positive) market externality would allow species to thrive without the material extraction of their habitat that you have placed a positive value on for some reason (eg. "Sounds like a good thing!").
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#Enclosur...
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate your mathematical approach but what I consider bad is not having $1e9 or $9e8 but ability to pay less taxes per dollar than poorer folks. Bad thing is that kingpins of: mining, slavery and proprietary software are so rich while providing so little value to society/environment. Examples: mining materials from Earth is important, but the revenues should belong to all who live on the planet being mined. Sla…
The only thing of value business owners produce is tax revenue?
There's also the value of whatever labor they do! But that labor probably isn't worth 100x someone else's work.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#136Climate and the reason that nothing significant have been done regarding that in 40+ years. Problems will not stop to appear while that is not solved. The whole system becomes fragile, and minor disturbances will become major ones.
> The whole system becomes fragile, and minor disturbances will become major ones. Why would this be the likely outcome?
Summary by NPR: https://www.npr.org/2023/01/09/1147805696/climate-change-mak...
Report they're summarizing: https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/publications/bulletin-...
It appears to be the case that heatwaves and extreme storms are becoming more likely.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because “equity” (communism) requires violence. Taking away from those who create more and giving to those who create less. Something that is non-consensual and requires violence is by definition unfair (unless you’ve a wicked moral compass).
"meritocracy" also requires violence. Unless what you really mean is "might makes right", in which case the violence is kinda baked in.
How so?
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#138Reports released by IPCC and other organizations [0] indicate that we have 15 years to take drastic action on the environment. This tracks with the extremely accurate prediction from The Limits to Growth [1] published in 1972. If we do not take action on climate _now_ then _nothing_ is going to matter. We will enter into an irreversible feedback loop that causes human extinction, yet it won't be apparent until it is…
The world will not end, just change. Maybe for the better? E.g. Siberia becoming fertile. Maybe even Sahara becoming green again! We know what needs to be done. Build nuclear! But unfortunately anti-growth “green” parties and activists (like you I presume) have been pushing anti-nuclear propaganda for decades, stopping progress. Nothing can be done on an individual level, so quitting your job or not having kids is co…
How could less regulation possibly help? Negative externalities need to be captured, how else can that be done but with more regulation?
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#139imho. with the perspective of 2023, there are only 2 major problems; * (real) war eg. "large" ones between superpowers ... not decimating goat-herders equipped with not much more than ak47 & towels around their heads somewhere in the lesser developed areas of the planet. * climate-change eg. taming the resource-hunger of capitalism.
“Towels around their heads” is derogatory and offensive phrasing. Please refrain from that language.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#140The biggest problem domain worth pursuing is figuring out fusion. If we can unlock what is effectively limitless power a lot of problems become far more tractable. Everything else is a distraction. We need cheaper and more available power. Every physicist and engineer in the world should probably try dedicating at least one or two month of their life to figuring out fusion. If humanity could pay a trillion dollars to…
We are living a mass extinction right now (that's not a prediction for a future risk, that's a fact that we can observe now). The reason of this mass extinction is cheap, abundant energy: habitat loss comes from there. Fusion would be great to finish making life on Earth look like surviving on Mars. Is that what you want? What we need (and will most likely face anyway) is to do less with less. Organise society to liv…
I'm not sure I follow. The mass extinction event is mostly due to habitat destruction AFAIK right? The reason for that is seeking new resources aka energy. You don't need to cut down the rainforest to plant low yield crops if you can more profitably grow higher yield crops vertically with grow lamps and powered watering systems.. no? 'Cheap energy' is very different from 'basically free energy' in terms of what you can do.