Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

news.ycombinator.com

281–290 of 311 posts

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#281

Unpopular opinion: One of the biggest challenges facing humanity in the next 2 decades is avoiding a catastrophic "Great Simplification" as we run out of oil. If this were allowed to happen, we'd suddenly be unable to practice industrial scale agriculture, and I'd estimate 90% of humanity would starve to death. The US produces large amounts of oil via fracking, which requires more resources to drill and produce than…

> At some point the energy and resources required to drill a well will match the possible production, and new wells won't make sense, leading to collapse.

The world thought this around 2005 or so and then fracing technology changed everything. Every year new tech is being invented that makes previously uneconomic wells profitable to drill.

Further, there is still so much oil out there.

You are right about society collapsing and everyone dying without oil though, but I don’t think that will happen.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#282
post #167

Unpopular opinion: One of the biggest challenges facing humanity in the next 2 decades is avoiding a catastrophic "Great Simplification" as we run out of oil. If this were allowed to happen, we'd suddenly be unable to practice industrial scale agriculture, and I'd estimate 90% of humanity would starve to death. The US produces large amounts of oil via fracking, which requires more resources to drill and produce than…

YES! Peak of conventional oil was in 2008, Europe feels it economically. Global peak oil is around now. We are facing a big energy problem, and we don't have any viable alternatives (renewables are just not up to the task, even nuclear is not). > We need to transition away from fossil fuels to avoid this fate. Yes, IMHO that involves degrowth: do less with less. Doesn't mean living like in the Middle Age, but make te…

> Global peak oil is around now.

Source?

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a shame GP decided to miss the point so badly. They do indeed describe authoritarianism not communism. I think there are very good reasons that every time some regime self branded as communism it very quickly devolved into dictatorship. Reasons that many of the solutions proposed were unworkable and naive. And I am not sure those reasons can be overcome. Communism should maybe be more of an ideal to be strived f…

How could you ever implement it democratically? What happens when people vote for the capitalists? The reality is that communism requires centralised power, centralised power attracts bad actors, and bad actors are significantly more comfortable wrestling control of that power by force than good ones are. Communism isn't inherently totalitarian, but according to all the experiments we've run so far as a species (at t…

> What happens when people vote for the capitalists?

You mean what happens if people vote for the capitalists. Why do you assume that people will vote for the capitalists?

Historically, we know what happens if people vote for the communists: if this happens at any scale, the US steps in and sets up a capitalist dictator. Examples:

1. The US displacement of Lyuh Woon-Hyung to set up Syngman Rhee. Rhee was "democtratically" elected in a US-controlled election which was boycotted by other candidates because voting was limited to property owners and tax payers or, in smaller towns, to town elders voting for everyone else.

2. The 1948 Costa Rican civil war, where the CIA helped stage a coup against Christian Socialist Rafael Ángel Calderón Guardia. However, the most conservative leader they could find was still pretty close to a communist, and he reinstated democracy, leading to a more equitable democracy, albeit still hampered by CIA interference, in 1950.

3. The 1949-1953 failed operation to overthrow the democratically-elected Albanian government with US/UK trained Albanian anti-communists.

4. Operation Fortune, the 1952 CIA operation to overthrow democratically-elected Jacobo Árbenz, followed by the more successful 1954 CIA coup which instated the capitalist dictator Carlos Castillo Armas, after the US-based United Fruit Company approached the CIA with concerns that Árbenz's anti-exploitation laws would hurt its ability to exploit workers in Guatemala.

5. The 1953 CIA/MI6 Operation Ajax/Boot (a.k.a. 28 Mordad coup), which overthrew a constitutional monarchy headed by Mohammad Mosaddegh's parliamentary government after the parliamentary government nationalized the Iranian oil pipeline. The coup saw the transition of Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian, who relied heavily on United States government support. That support dissipated during the Iranian Revolution of 1979, as his own security forces refused to shoot into non-violent crowds.

6. The 1961 overthrow of democratically-elected Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, followed by the systematic US-supported genocide of democratic separatists in two separate rebellions.

7. 1970-1973 Chilean elections. Both the US and USSR were funding elections in Chile, so it's difficult to describe this process as purely democratic, but ultimately Salvador Allende was elected along with a right-dominated congress (i.e. congress was capitalist-majority, while the president was communist). This balance wasn't acceptable to the CIA, who in 1973 helped enstate Augusto Pinochet as dictator. Pinochet went on to commit one of the largest genocides in history.

8. The 1976 overthrow of democratically-elected President Isabel Perón in Argentina, starting the military dictatorship of Jorge Rafael Videla, which committed multiple crimes against humanity, with explicit support from the US including multiple visits from Kissinger during its reign of terror.

> The reality is that communism requires centralised power, centralised power attracts bad actors, and bad actors are significantly more comfortable wrestling control of that power by force than good ones are.

Capitalism is just centralized power by other means, where power becomes concentrated in those with enough wealth to enforce their will. At least with communism there's a chance that the centralized powers can be democratically elected--with capitalism, there's no pretense that corporate executives are democratically elected, with corporations being able to withhold people's basic needs if they don't comply.

> Communism isn't inherently totalitarian, but according to all the experiments we've run so far as a species (at the cost of several hundred million lives), it does seem to inevitably lead to totalitarians.

As seen above, this is not the case. Numerous large-scale democracies have elected communist leaders--followed by US interference and instatement of capitalist dictatorships. At a smaller scale, there are numerous examples of successful democratic (or even consensus-based) communism. With corporations funding political disinformation and buying candidates, it's questionable whether a capitalist democracy is even possible.

But, if people really vote for the capitalists, you have a capitalist government. That's how democracy works: the majority might not be correct in their beliefs, but they still get to put those beliefs into action. The question is, why does the US brand of capitalism not seem to believe that? Why is it that when communists get elected, western capitalists suddenly don't believe in majority rule any more?

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#285
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a “no true Scotsman” fallacy that communists trot out to defend their failed ideology.

I did not argue that communist regimes didn't fail. I even think that was inevitable. And I even think that it was inevitable that the communist ideal would be immediately abandoned by every single regime once they gain power. That doesn't change that none of the well known historical regimes under the communist brand ever came close to the communist ideals. The betrayal of their original ideals was decried by commun…

The important bit is that every communist country tried to implement communism and every single time it led to one-party authoritarian nightmares where actual thoughtcrime was illegal and brutally enforced. That indicates a fundamental problem with the ideology to me, and one that isn’t ever worth trying again.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#286
post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense to me - you don't become a billionaire just by avoiding taxes, you have to actually create at least a billion dollars worth of surplus value first. And the only way to create a billion dollars worth of surplus value is to create many more billions of total value. If you want Jeff Bezos to pay taxes on the value of Amazon (which is the measure by which he is a billionaire) you basically force him t…

Amazon's "value" comes from the insane profits they generate each year. Profits they earn by taking advantage of labor (not paying them enough, not giving them breaks, not hiring enough people to staff warehouses), and by taking advantage of not paying taxes on those profits with creative schemes. It's not about making Jeff Bezos pay individual taxes, it's about making corporations incentivized to not suck the soul o…

>It's not about making Jeff Bezos pay individual taxes,

You are commenting in a thread that started with a statement that the very existence of billionaires is a problem, and a followup claimed that billionaires exist because they don't pay taxes.

My point is that the mechanism that creates billionaires in western societies is beneficial since the same mechanism generates a higher standard of living for everyone, not just the billionaires. It also generates way more taxes than the billionaires can pay even if you forced them.

I don't see how you can remove the billionaires without killing the mechanism. It has been tried, and has never worked out.

To be clear, Im not talking about people becoming billionaires in dictatorships or by owning the natural resources of entire nations. That's a different matter entirely.

I completely agree that one of the actual problems is that corporations are incentivized to treat workers as poorly as possible btw, and that is a problem that is actually fixable.

Whether billionaires pay a "fair share" or not depends on what you consider fair. I don't think basing tax on a market valuation of something you own is fair and I am not aware of it being done in any western nation. You get taxed when you sell shares, not by simply owning them.

The only example I can think of where it kind of happened is Jack Ma in China.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could you ever implement it democratically? What happens when people vote for the capitalists? The reality is that communism requires centralised power, centralised power attracts bad actors, and bad actors are significantly more comfortable wrestling control of that power by force than good ones are. Communism isn't inherently totalitarian, but according to all the experiments we've run so far as a species (at t…

> What happens when people vote for the capitalists? You mean what happens if people vote for the capitalists. Why do you assume that people will vote for the capitalists? Historically, we know what happens if people vote for the communists: if this happens at any scale, the US steps in and sets up a capitalist dictator. Examples: 1. The US displacement of Lyuh Woon-Hyung to set up Syngman Rhee. Rhee was "democtratic…

Venezuela would like a word with you sir...

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#288
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YES! Peak of conventional oil was in 2008, Europe feels it economically. Global peak oil is around now. We are facing a big energy problem, and we don't have any viable alternatives (renewables are just not up to the task, even nuclear is not). > We need to transition away from fossil fuels to avoid this fate. Yes, IMHO that involves degrowth: do less with less. Doesn't mean living like in the Middle Age, but make te…

> Global peak oil is around now. Source?

Production peaked a few years ago[1].

Additionally, the energy required to recover a barrel of oil from shale, etc. is far more than from traditional sources.[2]

[1] https://data.oecd.org/energy/crude-oil-production.htm

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It means those who cannot find partners to make families are further punished, making their chances to create families even lower. Incentivization of family formation would push people to get married, it would not make family formation less likely. The entire point of incentivizing a behavior through providing benefits is to make it easier for people who partake in that behavior, therefore drawing people to it. > T…

The end result is that a class of people live and die to provide for others. That's against nature, unless we reduce ourselves to the existence of ants. Down-right evil is what the consequences would be, but I retract that comment regarding the idea itself, because I don't think any malice is intended. Economic incentivizing by the government often have awful side effects. Let me make a comparison: Business is good f…

Houses are against nature. That doesn't mean they're bad.

Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?

#290
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's never going to be useful. D-T fusion is not as clean as is touted, and the economics just aren't ever going to make it viable compared to ever-cheaper solar, wind, batteries/energy storage, etc. Better fission designs OTOH are worth pursuing, and also deep geothermal, and maybe one or two of the CCS options though they seem a bit greenwashy.

15 years ago, solar and wind looked stupid expensive compared to fossil fuels.

But they didn't look like they were guaranteed to be that way forever.
Post reply on HN