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

181–190 of 311 posts

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#181

Post by theossuary »

Nesco wrote: post #113
defrost wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

World population is still increasing. It's climbed from 2.6 billion in 1950 to 7.8 billion in 2020. If world poulation halved we'd still be at 1975 population levels .. a time when the world functioned. > Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. We live on a finite planet with limited resources, the notion of unlimited growth being essential for continued status quo is flawed thinking. Our…

Your reasoning is very flawed for a single reason. If by let’s say 2075 the population was reduced to 1975 levels, the demographics would still differ widely. 1. Age distribution would look like an inverted pyramid instead of a pyramid 2. The geographical, racial/ethnical and cultural demographics would also look like the totally different. The share of global population of the global south, which is currently highly…

> racial/ethnical and cultural demographics would also look like the totally different

Why is this a problem?

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#183

Post by habitue »

Actually unpopular opinion: Existential risk from AI.

I think people think "AI is overhyped" etc, but there is a difference between there being too many low value AI startups right now (a bubble) and whether a few top labs will produce an AI that threatens humanity.

Even if it's a ten percent chance, it's a huge problem that we need to address.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#184

Post by palata »

tomp wrote: post #94
rajanaccros wrote: post #76

Earlier 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…

> The problem is you swallowed the “capitalism is evil” pill and now you’re confusing everything.

I think the problem is that you don't realize how bad the situation is, given the state of science today (which is pretty good, to be honest).

I don't care about capitalism. I'd say I care about living in peace and having food. Where we are going now, I am not sure I will have that.

I don't support living worse lives, I actually support living a better life. But I still have quite a few years to live (hopefully), and with most people thinking like you, it seems like my life will gradually get worse.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#185

Post by theossuary »

tomp wrote: post #158
gremlinsinc wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you could create degrowth libraries, or community sheds where you store items used irregularly that people can borrow like lawn mowers, drills, saws, 4 wheelers, cleaning supplies, etc, and even have a free Laundromat, and other tools and a free clothing swap. In this way you can buy less, do you really need a drill if you only use it twice a year? A lawn mower if you only use ur 20 times per year, etc? isn't it a wa…

This is actually something I 100% support. As long as degrowth or similar non-sensical ideologies ("luxury beliefs") are practices within free-market capitalism. The obvious problem, of course, is that 99% of people won't willingly choose lower quality of life (as described in your post, and as most "green" solutions end up being) voluntarily. So ultimately degrowthers end up trying to coerce others.

Creating communes of tools and such is not "within free-market capitalism." It's individuals choosing to ignore the free-market imperative to make profit for common good. The sooner we deprogram people the better, but sadly I don't think we'll make it before capitalism destroys this beautiful world.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#186

Post by palata »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #168
palata wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the opposite: having dramatically less energy. Our ancestors were not destroying biodiversity, and were running on renewables :-). Our modern problems came with fossil fuels...

They also killed each other for land. Sometimes they starved. As for us, we’ve already emitted too much. If we merely stop it’s still going to be a bad century.

> They also killed each other for land. Sometimes they starved.

If you don't, good for you. Don't think everybody has that chance.

> As for us, we’ve already emitted too much. If we merely stop it’s still going to be a bad century.

If we stop, it's going to be complicated times. If we don't... well we will have more conflicts for land (those that remain where humans can survive) and famines.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#187

Post by palata »

nurettin wrote: post #173
palata wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, productivity today is actually the biggest problem humanity is facing, if you think about it: productivity is directly linked to fossil fuels, which are not unlimited (that will soon be a problem) and also are the cause of climate change (that will soon be a problem too).

So I could ask it differently: why would you want anyone to spend a lot of effort keeping us in the direction that will globally make our society collapse?

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#190

Post by serjester »

Phone addiction. I know plenty of people that average 10+ hours a day of screen time. Teenagers are even worse. We have tons of worrying signs and for now we’re not doing anything about it. Unfortunately not a problem that’s easily solved and the algorithms are only getting better.
Post reply on HN