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.
Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
61–70 of 311 posts
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#62A lot of a billionaires which: 1. Exist 2. Actively making us not noticing their existance by shitting us with some fake problems like gays, drugs, foreigners, terrorists, etc (different set of fake problems per country).
So having >= 1,000,000,000 USD is somehow bad? How about 999,999,999? Still bad? How about 900,000,000? No? Hm. How much is too much, and why?
By that line of reasoning, we may as well eliminate tax brackets entirely. Or any sort of arbitrary limit, really. What makes an 18 year old mature enough to vote, but not a 17 year and 364 days old?
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#63The world population is collapsing at a rapid pace. Our economic growth is based on a growing productive population. Our economic prosperity is based on a growing productive population. Different parts of the world are dealing with population collapse. Look at Japan, a xenophobic country facing population collapse. The total GDP has remain stagnant over the past 20 years. Look at UAE, a country facing population coll…
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…
> If world poulation halved we'd still be at 1975 population levels .. a time when the world functioned.
The prosperity was much lower than. The scientific advancement even lower.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#64Earlier 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,…
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 that will still impact the environment. More growth means more extraction for wind/solar and other technologies that will impact the environment. These are not solutions to our issue.
Nothing else is working. Alarmism is supposed to get people to actually act, because otherwise they take your (ignorant) positions on sitting back and keep growing. The next idea you have for a great startup, a way to make money, something for your individual advancement, please go back to imperative #1 -- nothing is going to matter as we kill everything on this planet.
People become really defensive when they hear they have to change due to climate catastrophe. I get it. It's not fair. But it is necessary. If people read the alarmist language (not just from posters like me, but alarmist language from scientists who tend to use neutral language in their reports), then they will have to deal with the fact that the have a direct causal link to our children's and the next generation's death due to their inaction. At that point, the person is not just ignorant, but sociopathic. If we continue on this path, it will be humanity's ruin.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#65Technology: (1) getting off “free” platforms aka adtech. (2) Software quality aka actually providing good software that is intuitive to use and does what people need.
So what do we do with the billions who can't pay? They should stay offline until they can? I know I can pay now, but when I was starting out, I couldn't
Maybe just give an option to pay/go ad-free. It may be difficult, but it seems like there has to be a revenue neutral way to do this.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#66A lot of a billionaires which: 1. Exist 2. Actively making us not noticing their existance by shitting us with some fake problems like gays, drugs, foreigners, terrorists, etc (different set of fake problems per country).
So having >= 1,000,000,000 USD is somehow bad? How about 999,999,999? Still bad? How about 900,000,000? No? Hm. How much is too much, and why?
[deleted]
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. I did quit my job and am looking for climate careers actively through climatebase.org and climacareers.com (not associate with either but where I have been searching). I have transitioned to veganism, raise the AC of my house to a very high level to where I am spending $7 per week, bought a bike to commute around the city, have stopped buying clothes and am now buying only through thrift stores, reading (and try…
You use AC? I just went through 107 last week without AC. How do you even call yourself an environmentalist? Only when if affects your comfort level right?
Yes I use AC. And no, I live well outside my comfort level and well within the material consumption guidelines for being a person that is doing something about this the environmental issues on this planet.
Your line of questioning is disingenuous and utterly lowbrow. Do better.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#68Earlier 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…
> If world poulation halved we'd still be at 1975 population levels .. a time when the world functioned. The prosperity was much lower than. The scientific advancement even lower.
We won't lose knowledge by returning to 1975 population numbers, nor will we lose the ability to expand our scientific understanding.
The knowledge gains of recent decades did not ride on the back of population growth.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
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: Europe produces tons of food sustainably using minimal resources, and is actually regrowing forests!).
But I'd bet on further technological development and economic growth any time, my own life and that of my child(ren), rather than embrace degrowth and the associated (19th century) poverty, hunger, child mortality, etc. that comes with it.
Degrowth is literally murder.
Re: Ask HN: Problems for the next decade?
#70The 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…
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.