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

Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 139 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#31

Post by dotluis »

friedman23 wrote: post #4

> an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to finite planetary boundaries This is a stupid premise. People illiterate in both physics and economics seem to think that economic growth is bound by the laws of thermodynamics. This is easily proven false by contradiction: Let's say you have a few 2x4s and nails, by rearranging them into a chair you've created economic value. No extra raw materi…

Sure we can find a better use for the wood and nails. But the point is that the wood and nails are finite.

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#32

Post by friedman23 »

sdflhasjd wrote: post #13
friedman23 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The labor is a small fixed cost. Depending on what is done with the labor the leverage is potentially infinite (eg. many internet business that earn a million or more per year for every employee they have hired). Growth can happen by getting the same labor to do something more valuable (maybe building houses instead of chairs?)

Labour is people, which need food and water.

I don't see the point of your statement. Economic growth can happen even if the population remains constant (or even shrinks but that would be a headwind to overall economic growth and at that point it might be more instructive to look at gdp per capita).

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#33

Post by thorncorona »

smitty1e wrote: post #17
RhodesianHunter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call the changes "smaller". Climate change is an existential threat. Possibly the greatest one we've ever faced, certainly the greatest since WWII and so far we're definitely NOT rising to the occasion.

To quote the Instapundit: "I'll believe it's a crisis when the people telling me it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis." There seems a pile of circumstantial evidence that the rotating series of crises may merely be a device for controlling the masses through fear.

What is that bar for you?

What issues led you to this opinion that they’re overblown?

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#35

Post by orwin »

z3c0 wrote: post #21

I'm not sure I understand the "Degrowth" premise. It appears to equate economic expansion with resource consumption or population growth. Economic expansion can lead to resource consumption when consuming that resource is what's valued. If everybody valued less-consumptive products and services where they are currently value more-consumptive products and services, then the resulting increase in variety of good and se…

Economic growth in %gdp is transforming and moving exponentially more stuff and people around.

You need energy to do that.

The decoupling we saw in the last years is the same decoupling France saw after the Mesmer plan, and probably caused by renewables. There is basically no decoupling between energy and GDP.

Services are just second hand production basically.

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#36

Post by mberning »

I think it will be organic. I’ve severely curtailed my discretionary spending. The restaurants suck now, bad service and low quality food for a high price. Bars are barely open during adult hours, many being closed at 8 or 9pm. Theaters, concerts, and sporting events seem to run on a skeleton crew of people that are clueless.

It’s time to walk the walk. Plenty of people have a doomer mindset about the future. Prepare now. Commit yourself to an ascetic lifestyle and you won’t be disappointed.

But I doubt many will voluntarily live this way. It’s just like everybody upset about the climate, but none of them have installed solar and geothermal on their home.

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#37

Post by friedman23 »

dTal wrote: post #26
friedman23 wrote: post #4

> an infinite expansion of the economy is fundamentally contradictory to finite planetary boundaries This is a stupid premise. People illiterate in both physics and economics seem to think that economic growth is bound by the laws of thermodynamics. This is easily proven false by contradiction: Let's say you have a few 2x4s and nails, by rearranging them into a chair you've created economic value. No extra raw materi…

It seems rather disingenous to list all the raw materials for making a chair and then claim that because no extra materials were needed (because you listed them all) that infinite growth is possible. Okay, setting aside the question of where you got the planks and nails - you've made the chair. Now what? That's not "growth", that's a chair. You can make it once. Maybe you can recycle it into something more valuable -…

Are you trying to critique the use of simplified models for analyzing systems in general?

> Now what? That's not "growth", that's a chair

If somebody finds use from the chair that was growth, if it sits unused it was waste. Something of value was created from a bunch of useless pieces of wood and metal.

> How many times can you pull that trick? Eventually you'll reach the economically optimum configuration for those planks of wood.

Really? There is an economic optimum for the most valuable configuration of materials? This also ignores that while growth is occurring other things are being created which will impact the supposed equilibrium state that exists for wood and nails that will change what the most valuable configuration of those materials will be.

Anyway, let's go away from wood and nails. What about ink and paper. Or just words? Or just thoughts? What is the economic value of the observation the F = ma? Newton probably created infinite economic value by putting the observation that F=ma to paper.

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#38

Post by orwin »

nickpinkston wrote: post #19

(1) I'd encourage you to look at Jason Hickel's sources/bibliography closely before taking him too seriously. When he has numbers, they're from very biased sources that make too many assumptions from a place of extreme technological/economic conservatism. This isn't necessarily done consciously - the scientists who often make these predictions, like all scientists, have a very high standards for what facts are. While…

Decoupling is only decoupling GDP from CO2. GDP is still coupled with energy use.

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#39

Post by endymi0n »

imgabe wrote: post #18

> there's no way of our GDP keeps growing indefinitely while reducing our ecological footprint. Yes there is. We are vastly ineffecient with our use of energy. Fusion power, better use of solar, wind, geothermal power, better energy storage. The amount of solar hitting the Earth every day is several orders of magnitude larger than what is needed to run society at our current level. There is no shortage of energy, onl…

True that.

> there's no way of our GDP keeps growing indefinitely while reducing our ecological footprint.

This is at its core not a truth, but really an unsound belief system that could have been phrased the same about water quality, acid rain, leaded gasoline or the ozone hole. Yet these have all been tackled by humanity as a whole already, because we saw a pretty bad impact on our livelyhood quickly.

No doubt, CO2 is really the greatest challenge of all times, compared to nearly any global problem before. But it‘s far from insurmountable, and definitely not directly coupled to growth.

All it would take is a (literal) moonshot effort: Taking the same funds as the Apollo Program (in 2022 adjusted dollars) would be enough for a full transition.

Before this decade is over. Not because it‘s easy, but because it is hard.

Unfortunately, the US seems to have run out of massively visionary presidents since 1968.

Re: Ask HN: Is the world going to shit?

#40

Post by nickpinkston »

orwin wrote: post #38
nickpinkston wrote: post #19

(1) I'd encourage you to look at Jason Hickel's sources/bibliography closely before taking him too seriously. When he has numbers, they're from very biased sources that make too many assumptions from a place of extreme technological/economic conservatism. This isn't necessarily done consciously - the scientists who often make these predictions, like all scientists, have a very high standards for what facts are. While…

Decoupling is only decoupling GDP from CO2. GDP is still coupled with energy use.

Yea, generally energy use is fine as long as externalities are accounted for.
Post reply on HN