Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions • Hacker News Board

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#41

Post by Asbostos » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:12 PM UTC

asgard1024 wrote: post #10

I was almost sure that is going to be about climate change. It reminds me of: http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/ Even though the article proposes something (green energy as opportunity for capitalism), I think there is a huge problem with climate change for free market proponents, and deeply inside they know it. I don't see how the issue, which is "the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground", ca…

I notice in a lot of writing about climate change that people tend to try to convince the reader that it exists, both you and the article's authors mentioned the lot of scientific evidence. It makes it sound like permanent argument mode.

It also helps us forget that there's no reliable scientific evidence and certainly no consensus about what, if any, harm climate change will do to us and if it does, whether we'll have time to adapt. Somehow the debate seems to be between "it's true and there's lots of evidence" and "it's not true and I don't believe it" but in reality we really have no idea what it will do. Maybe we don't actually have to leave all the oil in the ground afterall and a few extra degrees turns out to be not much of a problem.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#42

Post by a3n » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:14 PM UTC

afarrell wrote: post #27

I am curious if this is hurt by people denying[1] the pain a solution would cause. A massive shift away from petrocarbon exploration would cause a great deal of unemployment (and consequently suicide, domestic violence, etc) in areas like Houston. [1] http://m.imgur.com/r/energy/up6yu

And probably a great deal of employment in [location where alternatives are produced].

Nothing deserves forever, and survival of civilization in the modern world depends on adaptation, not holding fast.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#43

Post by guscost » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:18 PM UTC

AC__ wrote: post #39

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

You should share your beliefs with the geoengineers running seeding programs creating algal blooms in the Pacific before they kill the whole fucking thing...

Well, that is what bothers me the most about this whole train wreck. If and when there are environmental issues more deserving of our attention than the CO2 thing, many anti-intellectuals are going end up dismissing them as politically motivated propaganda without even bothering to learn about them. Congratulations.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#44

Post by pekk » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

_yosefk wrote: post #5

It's nice that they used examples of problems denied by supporters of more than a single political party. I think we all do that. (Go programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by generics as real, C++ programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by garbage collection and boundary checking as real, Python programmers are less likely to acknowledge problems solved by static typing as real…

Rather than being examples of solution aversion, these are examples of trade-offs. Garbage collection solves some problems, but causes others, which is why not all software uses it. Static typing might help with some things, but causes other problems, which is why dynamic typing exists.

Though you are trying to make a point about communities like Go, C++, Python, and Haskell, you yourself are showing certain prejudices as far as language features that are not objectively justifiable, and it's not really any different.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#45

Post by Asbostos » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:23 PM UTC

kaybe wrote: post #22

asgard1024 wrote: post #10

I was almost sure that is going to be about climate change. It reminds me of: http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/ Even though the article proposes something (green energy as opportunity for capitalism), I think there is a huge problem with climate change for free market proponents, and deeply inside they know it. I don't see how the issue, which is "the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground", ca…

Actually the issue is later in the chain, "don't increase the atmospheric amount of climate gas" in first order. You're free to take out the fossil fuels if you do not use them as fuels but make plastic or whatever (which may lead to other unrelated problems), or if you manage to someone keep the CO2 from being emitted it should also be ok (and again can lead to problems, this time related, such as local and global r…

Yes, it's certainly more complicated than most proponents or opposers of it claim. I think that's because they both have a "solution affinity" for their preferred solution. Geoengineering has all sorts of promising ideas but talking about them publicly is like talking about making a safer cigarette - it's dilutes the arguments of people who've already been charmed by another solution (stop using oil and cars and grow your own vegetables).

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#46

Post by pekk » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:25 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

You missed the point of the paper, which isn't about climate change.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#47

Post by jfoutz » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:29 PM UTC

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

Have the models really changed that much in 35 years though? This one has all the highlights, radiation balance, 1D and 3D modeling, climate sensitivity, the main feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, ice- and vegetation albedo); solar and volcanic forcing; and ocean heat uptake.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/213/4511/957

They predict about half a degree C, and that seems to be holding up.

More interesting though, what would be convincing? Computers are fast. To paraphrase the red queen, we accurately predict 6 complex nonlinear systems before breakfast. Do you think there are other hidden effects that humans haven't observed? In what sense is it not settled?

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#48

Post by guscost » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:29 PM UTC

a3n wrote: post #40

guscost wrote: post #37

Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…

Very few really big problems are ever settled in our lifetime, and yet we have to act (which can include deciding to not act) on imperfect information. We do our best. Get used to it.

Very good, please continue doing that. Arguing about and working on the issues you believe to be important can be a constructive thing no matter your perspective. Likewise I will continue to argue my perspective and work on those issues I believe to be important. Dismantling pernicious groupthink is one of them.

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#49

Post by asgard1024 » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:31 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #34

guard-of-terra wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soviet Union routinely failed to sell its nuclear plants, airliners and less complex stuff. Soviet Union was able to produce something that worked, but it was all below price-quality curve. I.e. you could buy same quality product from Western corporations for less money; or you could buy better quality product for same money. Western corporations also had better selection. So only buyers were in communist bloc, and w…

I don't know why we're calling the USSR socialist; is it because they said they were socialist? There are plenty of dictatorial regimes that call themselves democratic republics, too. The USSR was structured like one massive corporation: Everything was owned by the government and the government bureaucracy functioned much like a corporate bureaucracy. Libertarian socialists sometimes call states like the USSR state c…

I agree with you, though I used the Czech Republic as an example because that's how it is commonly (yet wrongly) understood by the other side. It can be seen as collectivist in some ways, but in some it is much less. And I think the detailed comparison actually shows that the problem lies elsewhere (as you correctly state - concentration of power).

Re: Denying Problems When We Don’t Like the Solutions

#50

Post by clarkmoody » Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 3:34 PM UTC

asgard1024 wrote: post #10

I was almost sure that is going to be about climate change. It reminds me of: http://www.thenation.com/article/capitalism-vs-climate/ Even though the article proposes something (green energy as opportunity for capitalism), I think there is a huge problem with climate change for free market proponents, and deeply inside they know it. I don't see how the issue, which is "the fossil fuels have to stay in the ground", ca…

> dealt with free market only

Show me a truly free market, then we'll talk.

The solution to pollution might just be allowing for property rights in the rivers, oceans, and air, which is not the case now. Since the state owns those regions of the environment, then market forces cannot be brought to bear in the air and water, only state misadventures and mismanagement.