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

For the love of Earth, stop traveling

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#41

Post by alexasmyths »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #38
alexasmyths wrote: post #14

How about nationalize all Uranium on planet Earth thereby resolving fuel costs only to the cost of extraction, and building 1000 CANDU heavy-water reactors in Northern Ontario in a 10x100 grid - building only 3 variations (proven models) with very simple designs, and then simplifying the fuel cycle process dramatically. The French do 85% of their Electricity on Nuclear because they built a bunch of identical plants a…

No need to nationalize the uranium (I am quite skeptical that would reduce the "massive overhead of bureaucracy" you mention), but other than that your plan would indeed solve the problem (to the extent it is a problem). The problem is that the people behind this don't actually want to solve the problem. They just want to use it as an excuse for a power grab.

Nationalization would be required because once the plan was announced, the price of Uranium would go through the roof - and then bidding/speculation would start and Uranium would be coming up all over the place. Specifically: Russia.

Australia, Russia and Canada have most of the known deposits.

If the market price of Uranium is literally $0, well, Russians get nothing directly out of digging it up.

The grand concern would be, once something like this got going, there would be copycat entites in places that are not ready for it, i.e. China, Russia, Iran. Maybe China is today, but they are always teetering on revolution, or some kind of massive upheaval. There's no place like Canada for a vast expanse of boring, stable, calm, political stability and basic (but never exceptional) operational effectiveness.

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#42

Post by Turing_Machine »

alexasmyths wrote: post #41
Turing_Machine wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to nationalize the uranium (I am quite skeptical that would reduce the "massive overhead of bureaucracy" you mention), but other than that your plan would indeed solve the problem (to the extent it is a problem). The problem is that the people behind this don't actually want to solve the problem. They just want to use it as an excuse for a power grab.

Nationalization would be required because once the plan was announced, the price of Uranium would go through the roof - and then bidding/speculation would start and Uranium would be coming up all over the place. Specifically: Russia. Australia, Russia and Canada have most of the known deposits. If the market price of Uranium is literally $0, well, Russians get nothing directly out of digging it up. The grand concern…

1) How would nationalizing it make the price $0? Government services are notorious for costing more than private sector equivalents.

2) How are you planning to get the Russians to go along with this?

Edit to add:

3) Why shouldn't the Russians (or anyone else) get paid for digging it up? Mining uranium isn't something that people are going to do for fun.

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#43

Post by Turing_Machine »

cousin_it wrote: post #40
Turing_Machine wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "manipulated into needing" mean, exactly? The human race survived without computers for a couple of million years, so obviously we don't "need" them on an existential level. In your scenario, who gets to decide what other people "need"?

For example, you've almost certainly been manipulated into feeling mildly inferior because you aren't young and taking joyrides with friends in your convertible on winding roads by the sea. Or if you're not that kind of person, you might be feeling mildly inferior that you haven't yet built a hobby project that would take the world by storm. In other words, most people spend their lives being unhappy about status of…

"As to who gets to decide? We come up with guidelines and make them law."

Who is "we"?

" Anyone can tell when an ad shows an alluring life instead of selling the product on merit."

"Product merit" largely lies in improving the user's quality of life.

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#44

Post by Turing_Machine »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #43
cousin_it wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, you've almost certainly been manipulated into feeling mildly inferior because you aren't young and taking joyrides with friends in your convertible on winding roads by the sea. Or if you're not that kind of person, you might be feeling mildly inferior that you haven't yet built a hobby project that would take the world by storm. In other words, most people spend their lives being unhappy about status of…

"As to who gets to decide? We come up with guidelines and make them law." Who is "we"? " Anyone can tell when an ad shows an alluring life instead of selling the product on merit." "Product merit" largely lies in improving the user's quality of life.

Addendum: I'm not trying to be difficult here (well, maybe a little) but I'm wondering exactly how "what people need" differs from "my personal opinion of what other people need".

In your opinion, people don't need to take joyrides in convertibles. I understand that.

But other people's opinions differ. Why should your opinion be privileged?

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#45

Post by Mz »

I live without a car. I work remotely. I barely showered for nearly 6 years (cough... while homeless).

No one wants me as a role model.

Note how the guy lecturing you to cancel your plane tickets went to Morocco with his wife. He has a genius award. He is an award winning author. You generally don't get there by keeping your butt at home.

This is so very "Do as I say, not as I do." If this is such a great thing, why did you speak at the conference in Morocco? Why didn't you turn it down instead of bringing your wife and then calculating the total damage?

Edit:

Ah, a downvote. How ironic. "We don't want you as a role model and also shut up. No one wants to hear your opinion either. "

Weirdly validating.

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#46

Post by alexasmyths »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #42
alexasmyths wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalization would be required because once the plan was announced, the price of Uranium would go through the roof - and then bidding/speculation would start and Uranium would be coming up all over the place. Specifically: Russia. Australia, Russia and Canada have most of the known deposits. If the market price of Uranium is literally $0, well, Russians get nothing directly out of digging it up. The grand concern…

1) How would nationalizing it make the price $0? Government services are notorious for costing more than private sector equivalents. 2) How are you planning to get the Russians to go along with this? Edit to add: 3) Why shouldn't the Russians (or anyone else) get paid for digging it up? Mining uranium isn't something that people are going to do for fun.

Western governments would only pay 'cost' for digging up Uranium in Canadian (or other sanctioned) mines, thereby creating 0 demand for Uranium on global markets.

Nothing would stop the Russians from doing whatever they please. If this 'massive project' done by private entities - Uranium prices would rise dramatically, thereby creating incentive for Russian gov/private entities to ramp up Uranium production.

But with a 'nationalization' - well, global Urainum prices might remain weak knowing ain't nobody in the 'Western World' going to pay crazy prices for something that's too dangerous and no government would allow the sale of.

The 'nationalization' by Western Governments would surely be accompanied by a ban on private sale of it.

So the market would collapse making Russian gov/private entities less willing to put any dollars behind it.

But of course they can do whatever they want whenever they please - as they can today.

By the way - even with governments notorious and dysfunctional bureaucracy - I still think it would be cheaper than buying it from private entities where most of the cost would be in the form of some kind of rent extraction, not very related to the cost of extracting it.

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#47

Post by cousin_it »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #44
Turing_Machine wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As to who gets to decide? We come up with guidelines and make them law." Who is "we"? " Anyone can tell when an ad shows an alluring life instead of selling the product on merit." "Product merit" largely lies in improving the user's quality of life.

Addendum: I'm not trying to be difficult here (well, maybe a little) but I'm wondering exactly how "what people need" differs from "my personal opinion of what other people need". In your opinion, people don't need to take joyrides in convertibles. I understand that. But other people's opinions differ. Why should your opinion be privileged?

I'm not proposing to take away the joyrides. I'm proposing to take away manipulative ads featuring joyrides and see if happiness improves. It will either improve or not, that's a factual issue, not a matter of opinion.

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#48

Post by [deleted] »

Mz wrote: post #45

I live without a car. I work remotely. I barely showered for nearly 6 years (cough... while homeless). No one wants me as a role model. Note how the guy lecturing you to cancel your plane tickets went to Morocco with his wife. He has a genius award. He is an award winning author. You generally don't get there by keeping your butt at home. This is so very "Do as I say, not as I do." If this is such a great thing, why…

[deleted]

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#49

Post by Mz »

Mz wrote: post #45

I live without a car. I work remotely. I barely showered for nearly 6 years (cough... while homeless). No one wants me as a role model. Note how the guy lecturing you to cancel your plane tickets went to Morocco with his wife. He has a genius award. He is an award winning author. You generally don't get there by keeping your butt at home. This is so very "Do as I say, not as I do." If this is such a great thing, why…

thesmallestcat said:

I downvoted your comment because the first two paragraphs are off topic, seems like you just wanted to talk about yourself.

They deleted it before I could post the following reply:

Other people talk about themselves all the time on HN. That usually doesn't make a thing downvote worthy. But I get a lot of flak for it, presumably because people find something inherently disturbing about me.

I don't think it is off topic. If you really want a strong role model for how to live light on the land, you could admire me and follow my advice. Instead, my many websites get no traction and I get a lot of open hostility.

That is exactly my point. People only listen to and admire the type of people who fly to Morocco. People who actually walk the talk have no influence and never will.

Re: For the love of Earth, stop traveling

#50

Post by coldtea »

mbrock wrote: post #31
coldtea wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cinema gets its audience by posting events on Facebook, and that's advertising, right? No, that's just posting their events on their own channel that people have to subscribe to to see. But even if we classify that as advertising we can still allow that -- we're inventive, as humans -- without still not allowing for 90% of what today is used for advertising.

When you ban that 90%, all that desire and energy and capital will sink into the other channels, and the outcome will be nothing like you wanted, just like banning drugs is nothing at all like deleting drugs from society.

Aside from drugs and alcohol, which are addictive, it has worked wonders for tons of other things...
Post reply on HN