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

Insects Are in Serious Trouble

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 168 posts

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#51

Post by valuearb »

b0rsuk wrote: post #37
njarboe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one of the main problems is that GDP is used as the measure of national prosperity. GDP goes down when people decide to work less. Some kind of net wealth measurement would be much better parameter for a country to try and maximize. Include natural resources and the biosphere in that wealth. In this scheme taking oil from the ground and burning it would likely be a net negative on national wealth while using…

When a company produces 1000 cars and pollutes a river in process, this counts as economic growth. When another company spends time, money and resources to clean that river, that also counts as economic growth, even if was just to get natural environment back to its original health. Some food for thought.

This is a great example of how we don't weigh externalities in GDP, why we should, and why we need market based solutions to those externalities. For example, a cap on river pollutants so low the river and wildlife can't be poisoned and each company has to buy rights from the limited pool, or if too expensive, find ways to limit their pollutants.

I once read (from Milton Friedman IIRC) that some european countries passed a law to limit river pollution by requiring companies to have their river water intakes downstream of their outflows. Supposedly this made a huge difference in the amount of pollutants they dumped in the river. That is a simple but limited way of imposing the externality costs on the persons who inflict the damage.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#52

Post by greg7gkb »

avip wrote: post #43
mikeash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like growth. I want to be wealthier or be able to work less (which is really just an aspect of being wealthier). I want everybody else to be wealthier too. I want my children to be better off than I am. The problem is growth without care for the consequences. Making some people wealthier at the expense of killing the planet is a bad plan. But I think that it goes too far the other way to turn around and say that gr…

Is there "growth" without consuming physical resources? If not, we have to accept OP's POV that economic growth is by definition unsustainable. "Anyone who thinks exponential growth can continue forever is either a madman or an economist"

There is absolutely 'growth' without consuming resources. Economic growth also includes improvements in efficiency, which typically reduce the amount of physical resources used. Also, look at the transition in our lives from physical media to digital media. Digital channels have brought massive growth while reducing the need for paper, CDs, DVDs, etc.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#53

Post by jeffdavis »

b0rsuk wrote: post #10

I think nothing will change as long as economic growth is understood as economic Good . Current economy can't work if there's no economic growth. Banks are among the biggest culprits. If banks lend money at a 5% interest rate, their customers must grow their businesses by 5%. A new, sustainable economy is needed. I think about it each time I see the Race for the Galaxy card. I've seen a radical example of this among…

"the tribe can fully sustain itself"

That's called a subsistence economy. It has downsides, such as very high rates of violence and other preventable deaths (like death during childbirth).

One could imagine trying to solve these problems, but all the solutions sound more like dystopia rather than utopia.

In any case, there is a fair amount of unsettled land. You can probably buy some or even squat, and try to make your own tribe.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#54

Post by mikeash »

avip wrote: post #43
mikeash wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like growth. I want to be wealthier or be able to work less (which is really just an aspect of being wealthier). I want everybody else to be wealthier too. I want my children to be better off than I am. The problem is growth without care for the consequences. Making some people wealthier at the expense of killing the planet is a bad plan. But I think that it goes too far the other way to turn around and say that gr…

Is there "growth" without consuming physical resources? If not, we have to accept OP's POV that economic growth is by definition unsustainable. "Anyone who thinks exponential growth can continue forever is either a madman or an economist"

Imagine an economy in perfect stasis, no growth, no shrinkage, just the same stuff year after year. Now introduce some efficiency improvement, like shaving some weight from a car design, or a computer chip that performs the same computation for less power, or an agricultural technique which requires less land for the same yield. Voilà, growth without consuming additional physical resources.

Of course, this is not our main source of growth at the moment. But surely it could be?

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#55

Post by valuearb »

pps43 wrote: post #21
b0rsuk wrote: post #10

I think nothing will change as long as economic growth is understood as economic Good . Current economy can't work if there's no economic growth. Banks are among the biggest culprits. If banks lend money at a 5% interest rate, their customers must grow their businesses by 5%. A new, sustainable economy is needed. I think about it each time I see the Race for the Galaxy card. I've seen a radical example of this among…

5% interest rate does not imply 5% business growth. Interest rate simply reflects the fact that people prefer $1 right now to $1 a year later. In this context banks are time machines, moving money through time (glossing over credit risk, inflation, and other complexities).

Right, and maybe the best way to describe it is if your business borrows at 5%, it has to earn more than 5% on that borrowed money. It has little to do with growth, and everything to do with profit margin.

For example, lets say you want to start a business is investing in bonds. You work for wall street and are great at picking high yield bonds that aren't as risky as they look. You average a 7% return over time, which includes losses on your mistakes. But you have no money to invest to start the business, so you approach a bank and show them your long term results. The bank sees you as a good risk and offers to loan you $10M at 5% a year, so you can gross $700k a year, pay the bank $500k, and net $200k.

But if the bank ever raises your rate to 7%, you are then out of business.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#56

Post by avip »

valuearb wrote: post #45
b0rsuk wrote: post #10

I think nothing will change as long as economic growth is understood as economic Good . Current economy can't work if there's no economic growth. Banks are among the biggest culprits. If banks lend money at a 5% interest rate, their customers must grow their businesses by 5%. A new, sustainable economy is needed. I think about it each time I see the Race for the Galaxy card. I've seen a radical example of this among…

Modern capitalism can be easily sustainable. You just have to do two things. 1) Legislate frameworks for market based solutions to externalities i.e. tragedies of the commons such as air pollution, water quality, etc. Cap and trade would be one framework for addressing CO2. 2) Eliminate mercantilism, where government policies are used to interfere in market forces, usually for the benefit of wealthy business owners.…

So TLDR "X can easily become Y, you just have to fulfil 2 impossible conditions A and B"

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#57

Post by opo »

mikeash wrote: post #44
b0rsuk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be that way ? What else could people compete for ? Facebook likes ? So far, almost all wealth is material in nature. As for digital rewards, data-centers and other computer infrastructure needs constant input of energy. Human population is growing, humans love to copulate and take pride in having children. We need bigger and bigger internets for bigger facebooks.

Most wealth is material, but that doesn't mean you need ever more material for ever more wealth. The obvious common example is electronics. Shrink a computer or smartphone to use half the materials while otherwise maintaining the same capabilities, and you've increased the amount of wealth it represents. Raw materials aren't worth much. We mostly pay for the arrangement of matter, not the matter itself. A person who…

You bring up many good points, but I don’t think you need to accept the main point of the original post:

>Most wealth is material...

The wealth/value of the companies that control the intellectual property that the world relies on, are at least as valuable as the companies that control the materials we rely on. Microsoft was maybe the first company to grow huge that didn’t rely on control of oil/railroads/etc for its wealth and there are plenty others. I don’t see that trend reversing - as you said we mostly pay for the arrangement of matter, not the matter itself.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#58

Post by carapace »

mikeash wrote: post #54
avip wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there "growth" without consuming physical resources? If not, we have to accept OP's POV that economic growth is by definition unsustainable. "Anyone who thinks exponential growth can continue forever is either a madman or an economist"

Imagine an economy in perfect stasis, no growth, no shrinkage, just the same stuff year after year. Now introduce some efficiency improvement, like shaving some weight from a car design, or a computer chip that performs the same computation for less power, or an agricultural technique which requires less land for the same yield. Voilà, growth without consuming additional physical resources. Of course, this is not our…

Well now you're just playing semantic games with the word "growth".

Never mind the details of the economy, population growth is the killer.

As long as the net ecosystem gain per person is negative rather than positive we are accelerating at a wall.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#59

Post by mikeash »

carapace wrote: post #58
mikeash wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine an economy in perfect stasis, no growth, no shrinkage, just the same stuff year after year. Now introduce some efficiency improvement, like shaving some weight from a car design, or a computer chip that performs the same computation for less power, or an agricultural technique which requires less land for the same yield. Voilà, growth without consuming additional physical resources. Of course, this is not our…

Well now you're just playing semantic games with the word "growth". Never mind the details of the economy, population growth is the killer. As long as the net ecosystem gain per person is negative rather than positive we are accelerating at a wall.

If the original post had said that population growth needed to be stopped, I'd have agreed with it. But that's not what it said.

The whole thrust of that comment and the ensuing conversation is the nature of economic growth. That's not "semantic games," that's a different topic.

Re: Insects Are in Serious Trouble

#60

Post by bitL »

b0rsuk wrote: post #10

I think nothing will change as long as economic growth is understood as economic Good . Current economy can't work if there's no economic growth. Banks are among the biggest culprits. If banks lend money at a 5% interest rate, their customers must grow their businesses by 5%. A new, sustainable economy is needed. I think about it each time I see the Race for the Galaxy card. I've seen a radical example of this among…

Exponential growth is a pipe dream sustained only by exponential inflation and destroying Earth. Economies have overcapacity, with ML coming into play it's going to be evident everywhere. We will need a big political change; I hope people won't go with the traditional solution - war, genocide etc. Technology now enabled a few people to literally own the whole planet, so while they were playing this pointless domination game, environment suffered and might never fully recover.
Post reply on HN