Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 311 posts

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#171

Post by palata »

bequanna wrote: post #93
gmuslera wrote: post #61

Climate 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?

Do you mean that you don't understand why climate change is a major problem? That's a genuine question: I guess it is fine, but respectfully I think you should look into it. Because where we are headed now looks pretty bad, both for the half of humanity that will have to migrate because it won't be possible to survive in the outdoor conditions and for the half of humanity that won't want the other half to come to their country.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#172

Post by palata »

culopatin wrote: post #124
dakotasmith wrote: post #28

I’ve got a second grader and myself & other parents are wondering how useful a public school education will be in 10 years when they are graduating

It never was useful, people differentiate based on the choices they make outside of school and the people they meet. Public education is there to level out the childhood trauma and normalize things. It’s a big sander that levels down.

It is not my experience at all, but I suppose you implicitly mean "in the US"?

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#173

Post by nurettin »

palata wrote: post #164
megalord wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communism has never been tried? Could you explain a little bit more? I don't know if you are joking or lacking knowledge. Or maybe I lack some knowledge you know about

No system has managed to reach the point where it could be called "pure communism", because it was "interrupted" in the middle (e.g. by becoming authoritarian). Saying "communism fundamentally cannot work because I know examples that did not work" is similar to saying "democracy fundamentally cannot work, look: Hitler was democratically elected".

I think it is inevitable. Why would anyone willingly give up their rights to tools of production? Correct me if this is a gross misunderstanding, but how can you get people to invent things in their garage when statesmen are trotting around looking for "unearned surplus"? And if the wealth will somehow end up being distributed to you anyway, and more work doesn't have any meaning, why try anything at all?

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#175

Post by palata »

ryandrake wrote: post #97
rajanaccros wrote: post #27

Reports 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[…

> I've been hearing for most of my life, at least the last 40 or so years

Well, maybe you don't care that 2/3 of animal populations have disappeared in the last few decades, but I guess for many it counts as a big problem.

Anyway don't be sad, we are starting to actually feel the consequences of climate change, so stay tuned: famines and global instability might still come in your lifetime, or at least in your children lifetime!

(I assume you are at least 50 if you've been aware of this for 40 years)

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#176

Post by palata »

tomp wrote: post #43
rajanaccros wrote: post #27

Reports 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…

> Maybe for the better?

Eventually, maybe. For most species, humanity collapsing is definitely a good thing.

Now in your lifetime... I would rather bet for mass migrations, famines, wars and global instability.

But yeah, voting is important, because given how most people vote, they are not aware of the problem.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#177

Post by nine_k »

thelastgallon wrote: post #154

Renewable power production is wasted due to curtailment.[1] All this free power is being wasted, which could be used to charge cars. The US has 2 billion parking lots, 290 million cars and cars are idle 23+ hours every day. All we need is a cable from nearest building to parking lot to charge electric cars. The technology exists. This is a win-win opportunity, accelerate renewables and wean off of fossil fuels. I'm w…

So basically the battle to fight here is overcoming various regulations and restrictions on laying or hanging cables? A quest for a true hero.

The company, of course, needs to employ highly efficient, least-invasive, fastest ways to lay cable. But it's a serious power cable, it can't be easily snuck together with other existing cables or pipes, like it's done usually with fiber cables. Some technical innovation can belong here.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#178

Post by palata »

tomp wrote: post #56
rajanaccros wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't agree with this. And I am not against nuclear. I am for any action that will restructure our society that is more reciprocal with the environment. The world will not change for the better with 60+% of species extinction, wet bulb temperatures and not enough power to cool will affect and kill millions of people N/S 30deg of the equator. My alarmist talking points it to actually engage people like you an…

Well if we built more nuclear, we’d have more power to run more A/C. Actually even with solar we can do that (it’s night power that would remain a problem). No solution that requires degrowth, less energy, lower GDP or lower human quality of life, is acceptable to me. Degrowth means less food, less medicine, less power, less transport, more death. Alarmism and promoting degrowth and/or stupid policies (paper straws,…

> Well if we built more nuclear, we’d have more power to run more A/C.

You don't get it. We are heading towards a world where, on a very big part of the planet (around the equator), it will not be possible for humans to survive outdoors (at some temperature and humidity, sweating does not work anymore, you don't regulate your temperature, and so you die).

> Degrowth means less food, less medicine, less power, less transport, more death.

You are describing "forced" degrowth (what will happen if we don't prepare our society to handle it). The idea is to plan it, and have priorities (so that maybe you can't take the plane every two weeks, but you can still eat and survive, hopefully without a civil war).

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#179

Post by TheFreim »

xerxesaa wrote: post #2

We have an aging population and many places have a flat birthrate. We need to solve how to deal with this consequences. Who will care for these people? How will we deal with the consequences of flat population growth? How will we deal with the stock market's expectations of perpetual growth when the underlying population itself is not growing (and especially since productivity has also been relatively flat)?

> We need to solve how to deal with this consequences.

I'm hoping that we start to see an increase in pro-family policies. A couple rough ideas to look into would be decreasing taxation (or giving refunds/payments) based on how many children a productive family has, providing financial support so families can buy homes, and promoting wage increases so a single income can support a family to allow one to work and the other to focus on raising the children.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#180

Post by palata »

tomp wrote: post #69
rajanaccros wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You actually could not be more wrong. Degrowth is the only thing that is going to solve our issue. That does not meaning cutting off food to populations, that means not maximizing profit as the only imperative to living. Your solution is technical, as many naive people believe, but will not solve the issue. We have planetary boundaries and "renewables" and nuclear will not solve those issues. More AC, means for CFCs…

Technology literally means getting more value from the same amount of inputs. Earth has essentially unlimited resources in its crust, and with better technology we'll have access to more and more of them. Not to mention offworld resources. Sure, there's a few things that we need to figure out - like stopping fossil C release into the atmosphere, and how to spread good agritech to poor, non-democratic countries (hint:…

> Earth has essentially unlimited resources in its crust, and with better technology we'll have access to more and more of them.

Just check how it goes with fossil fuels :-). Spoiler: definitely not unlimited, definitely becoming a problem (that Europe can feel economically since 2008).

> Sure, there's a few things that we need to figure out - like stopping fossil C release into the atmosphere

Yep, "just a thing" that makes the difference between life and death of hundreds of millions of humans. And we don't have any serious technological solution right now (if you don't believe it, ask yourself: are you an expert in such a solution, or do you just have faith that "someone else" will find it?). Degrowth is the only solution when you don't have that kind of faith.

Post reply on HN