What can a technologist do about climate change? • Hacker News Board

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#251

Post by saalweachter » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 3:37 AM UTC

tvanantwerp wrote: post #239

saalweachter wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get involved in local government. As someone else pointed out, most epic problems are social problems. Building a moon base was a technical challenge in like the fifties, and now it's an organizational problem of getting a hundred million people to agree to do it. Government is our primary mechanism for solving organizational problems; you can invent other ones, but why bother? Our government -- assuming you're in th…

Getting involved with local government may help to solve your local problems, but won't help with the epic ones. And from my own experience living and working in DC, getting involved with the federal government gives you only a very small chance of making a dent in whatever your pet issue is. I've worked with people who've lived here for 30+ years fighting for a single issue who've failed to make any meaningful progr…

Sure, but in local government you can (a) make real progress at a local level and (b) shape priorities of the layers of government above you.

In local government you can adjust zoning to encourage low-income housing and encourage multi-use residential/commercial zones. You can demilitarize local police forces and encourage a "protect and serve" attitude. You can set up needle exchange programs to reduce the spread of blood-borne diseases. You can accept refugees into your community.

There is also communication between different layers of government, both formal communication and informal networking -- a lot of state representatives and congressmen used to serve in local government. Getting involved in local government gives you another way to influence policy at a state and federal level.

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#252

Post by crpatino » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:34 AM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #183

superuser2 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is peak oil not believable? There might be more of than we thought, but we're pretty sure there's not infinitely much. It has to happen eventually.

When I say peak oil isn't believable, I mean in the sense that over the last 15 years, especially before shale oil, the west was bombarded by "experts" saying peak oil had already occurred, and oil would be unafforadable in just a few years as prices skyrocketed. Any argument that involved technological progress in reducing the cost of mining hard to get oil was mocked and lambasted as hopelessly naive. I of course d…

It is a fact that conventional oil has already peaked, sometime in the last 5-10 years. Shale oil, tar sands and the like are picking up part of the slack, though their EROI is lower (though still a little better than renewables) and have a bunch of other technical and environmental issues. At some point we'll have to bite that bullet.

The problem with your remark was caused by the doomers who took the flag of Peak Oil (TM) to claim that everything was going to crash and burn when the peak reached. Then when reality turned out to be more nuanced than that, the general public just went on to laugh the whole thing off and keep ignoring the real issues.

In an ideal world, we should be in the middle of a crahs program to retool the whole industry to work with renewables and mitigate the effects of other related issues like climate change/global weirding... but instead, we are doing too little and too late.

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#253

Post by hanniabu » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 6:15 AM UTC

grenzbegriff wrote: post #223

hanniabu wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys speak of dividends. I'm not good with stocks so pardon my novice. May I ask what you invest in that earns you the best dividends and keeps you diversified? I'm also assuming you reinvest the dividends? Are there any tips you can give for someone wanting to start doing this? Are there any tricks you have that help you pay less taxes? And tricks to how one should diversify?

I put almost all of my savings into total stock market index funds. I use Vanguard so the expense ratio is 0.05%. Dividends are automatically reinvested so I don't have to worry about that -- from my perspective dividends look no different than the fund's value going up. Here are some resources that explain why to do this and how: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/wiki/investing http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/…

Wow, lots to look up and learn. Thanks for the leads and taking the time to comment!

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#254

Post by ommunist » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 6:15 AM UTC

XorNot wrote: post #226

ommunist wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, data for individual eruptions: Year Volcano Mean Sulphurous Output Source Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption 1883AD Krakatoa 38 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 26.14 MtCpa 1815AD Tambora 70 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 48.16 MtCpa 1783AD Laki 130 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 89.44 MtCpa 1600AD Huaynaputina 48 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 33.02 MtCpa 1452AD Kuwae 150 MtH2SO4pa Witter & Self (2007) 67.40 MtCpa 934AD Eldj…

You really need to qualify what those units are. But also, again, if what what you were saying were true, why does it not show up in the atmospheric CO2 record?

Because plants and algae consume co2, this is school biology.

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#255

Post by brenschluss » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 6:22 AM UTC

jerf wrote: post #175

brenschluss wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's quite a bit wrong with this model - most of all, it starts from the assumption that the lack of capital is the main limiting factor. World hunger is not a resource problem, it is a distribution and ideology problem.

I tend to agree that world hunger is not the best example of problem that can be fixed in that manner, actually. But there are plenty of problems that can be. I'd also observe that if you agree with the statement "People just don't care enough about the problems to fix them.", that that is morally all but the same thing as saying "People don't give enough of their money to solve the problem.", especially if people ar…

> Caring basically is money, be it in the form of concrete donations, donations of time, or anything else that money can be converted into.

This is not just a laughably simplistic statement, but a sinister one, as it's the flawed axiom on which you justify your moral self-exoneration from feeling the need to do anything.

But let's take your logic even further. Because of economies of scale and the powers of compound interest, multi-billion-dollar industries (and their owners) have much higher marginal earning potential, and the effects of their efforts will vastly outweigh those of everyone else. Since "caring basically is money", there's a higher proportion of caring-ness that billionaires hold, and ought to mobilize.

This means that, for anyone who is not a multi-billionaire, "there is literally nothing you can do". So for most people living their day-to-day life, we should continue to live in relative ignorance to these problems, and defer the moral question of mobilizing the world's resources and care the multi-billionaire.

Moral of the story (of jerf's worldview): "don't worry, don't even try to fix things; the ubermensch will do it for you".

If I am putting words in your mouth, then I would request that you point out the flaws in my argument. Moreover, rather than pointing out that it's a strawman argument, I'd request that you point out why it is so -- otherwise, my pastiche of your logic ceases to be a strawman and becomes an accurate representation of your opinion.

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#256

Post by ommunist » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 6:38 AM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #168

ommunist wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One small volcano vs all European flights. Now look at this: | Year | Volcano | Mean Sulphurous Output | Source | Est. Carbon output during year(s) of eruption | | +----------------+--------------+------------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------------------------+--+ | 1883AD | Krakatoa | 38 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008) | 26.14 MtCpa | | | 1815AD | Tambora | 70 MtSO2pa | Shinohara (2008)…

So you're bringing up the Toba eruption (circa 71,000BP!), probably the largest eruption in the past 100 thousand years, which was so extreme that some scholars suspect that it created a "genetic bottleneck" in human DNA by killing off the majority of humans.[1] According to your list, it emitted 494.24 Mt of carbon. By comparison: "Since 1751 approximately 374 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to th…

Unfortunately there is no magic fingerprint to distinguish between tectonic, volcanic and antropogenic carbon. The thing is that there are about 130 000 intraplate volcanoes leaking co2 to the ocean all the time. And it is very probable that the whole human output to carbon release during the whole industrial history is less than carbon input of the Pacific Ridge in just 10 years. Another thing is that over the last 800 years or so volcanic activity increased. So 30 percent or such increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the last 100 years is not a human sin. Planet is larger than you think, and humanity is smaller. Take a hike up the Yenisei river from Chita, see for yourself.

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#257

Post by grenzbegriff » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 6:41 AM UTC

BOOSTERHIDROGEN wrote: post #242

grenzbegriff wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think about the same things and ask the same question. My current plan is to save most of my money so I can reach financial independence very early. I'm 25 now, I'll be financially independent by 27, meaning I'll have enough money invested to live indefinitely on interest/dividends. My total expenses/spending is $25k/year and I'm sure I can keep them there if I want to. Most people who start making a silicon valley…

> (If anyone doesn't get how this works, I can explain.) would you mind explaining me?

Jach's reply explains some of the logic. Basically if you can live on $X per year, then once you have $X * 25 invested, you can most likely live on the interest from that investment for the rest of your life without using it up.

Here's an article shows the math: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-sim...

In my case I'm saving between 80-85% of my after-tax income, which is how I can "retire" after between 4-5.5 years of work.

Two ways to achieve this are to increase your income or to reduce your spending. Ideally both. Reducing spending generally means your life has less impact on the environment, you'll be happier.

It's key to realize that money you save and invest earns more money for you, forever. A useful heuristic here is that if you can save $X per month, after 10 years of doing that you'll have $X * 173 in the bank. So suppose I currently buy lunch every work day for average of $10, if I instead pack a lunch that costs me $1, I'll save $200 / month. Over 10 years this adds up to $34000.

Once you start thinking this way, it's easier to be excited about cutting your spending. And then you find that you can live and be happy on a much smaller amount of money than you thought. So not only do you build up your savings a lot faster, you actually need a lot less savings to be financially independent.

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#258

Post by grenzbegriff » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 6:52 AM UTC

likeapub wrote: post #246

grenzbegriff wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's enough for me to live the way I live right now, indefinitely. I currently live in silicon valley paying very high rent ($1100/mo). If I didn't want to work I could live somewhere a lot cheaper. "Retirement" means different things to different people. I was talking about financial independence, which means I can choose to retire, but more likely it will mean I find work I enjoy more, without considering the pay a…

good luck! i also hope to have 500k net worth soon too, probably in a few years. do you anticipate marrying and having a house soon?

Life could go anywhere -- this is just my current plan. It has been my plan since I started working 2.5 years ago, but it may change.

If I meet someone, who knows. :)

But I am happy already, while I'm single and don't own a house. I also don't assume that it's necessary to own a house when one is married. The hypothetical We could decide whether it's worth trading 2-3 more years of work to buy a house. Maybe it would be, maybe not. The key is to consider the options, and not just assume you have to do what everyone else does.

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#259

Post by Jemaclus » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 7:07 AM UTC

nether wrote: post #238

Jemaclus wrote: post #57

I've asked this question a few times but haven't really gotten a satisfactory answer. There are a lot of what I might call "epic problems" out there. Malaria, homelessness, HIV, refugees, war, climate change, income inequality, gender inequality, hate crimes. I don't know anything about creating vaccines or cures for malaria or HIV. I don't have a degree in social work or behavior science. I don't have any experience…

I'm curious as to what motivates your question. Is there an expectation that a software developer could contribute to climatology more than a climatologist could to software problems?

That's a great question. I don't think it's a matter of "Can I contribute more than a climatologist? but rather "How can I help a climatologist make better models and predictions?" or "How can I help my city reduce homelessness?" or "How can I help microbiologists develop vaccines for Hepatitis C or HIV?". Maybe it's building software. Maybe it's just getting word of mouth out. I don't really know. But I have a particular set of skills that don't directly map to those industries, and I'm not sure how I can contribute beyond just throwing money at the problem.

To give a little more context, my fiancee is a microbiologist (lab researcher). I talk to her often about her work, but I don't understand 95% of the jargon she's talking about, just like she doesn't know the difference between OOP and ASAP. I mean, at some point it's about educating myself on these issues. But like I said in my original post, I don't know where to start.

If I don't know anything about microbiology, how do I learn enough to contribute software, without requiring a 4 year degree in microbiology?

Does that make more sense?

Re: What can a technologist do about climate change?

#260

Post by VanillaLime » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 7:32 AM UTC

brenschluss wrote: post #255

jerf wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree that world hunger is not the best example of problem that can be fixed in that manner, actually. But there are plenty of problems that can be. I'd also observe that if you agree with the statement "People just don't care enough about the problems to fix them.", that that is morally all but the same thing as saying "People don't give enough of their money to solve the problem.", especially if people ar…

> Caring basically is money, be it in the form of concrete donations, donations of time, or anything else that money can be converted into. This is not just a laughably simplistic statement, but a sinister one, as it's the flawed axiom on which you justify your moral self-exoneration from feeling the need to do anything. But let's take your logic even further. Because of economies of scale and the powers of compound…

I really recommend you read about the Effective Altruism movement if you want a detailed response to your questions.

In response to your question, you are totally right! Anything you can do for most of these problems will probably be completely meaningless compared to the scale of the problem. Almost certainly, the rational decision is to do nothing. So what?

The entire idea of altruism is that you make an economically irrational choice to contribute to a cause that produces positive externalities for society but does not benefit you directly (if it did, it's not altruism anymore: it's just an investment).

Measuring caring in terms of dollars allows you to maximize your possible contribution. Imagine a highly-paid consultant who cares about the homeless, so he volunteers at the local soup kitchen for several hours a week. If he instead simply worked for those same hours and earned $100 an hour, he could pay 10 people to work at the same soup kitchen and help 10 times as many homeless. That's the kind of tradeoff you don't think about if you don't realize that money is fungible with regard to caring.

In the longer run, realizing that money fixing things means that you can also decide to dedicate your life to making money and donate a significant chunk of that money to the cause of your choice, leaving both you and presumably society better off than if you had dedicated your whole life to volunteering/working for your cause in the first place, since your money can fund specialists in the field who are probably more effective than you, as a random coder/manager would be.

And no, this doesn't imply that if billionaires hold the most effective resources for solving the problem, you should give up. Instead, dedicate yourself to effectively convincing said billionaires to care about your cause. The guy(s) who successfully convinced Bill Gates to donate to malaria eradication have probably saved more lives than every volunteer who was previously working on that effort.

The point is, realize that if you want to care, you should make a difference in the most effective way possible, and often that is by leveraging money and resources in ways that most people would not consider "charitable work" in the traditional sense of the phrase.