If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home? • Hacker News Board

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#41

Post by gowld » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #15

bubblewrap wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really - what solution is there for heating and cooling? Especially given that insulating houses with plastic seems to cause other problems like mold, or pollution with toxins to prevent mold? And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose?

> And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose? Walk. Bicycle. Use public transit. In extremity, buy an electric car (but that has issues, too). If your question is "what should people who live, heavily subsidized, in suburbs and exurbs, do?", then the answer teases itself out pretty elegantly.

Saying people should avoid living in pleasant environments so conserve resources is nearly identical to saying people should avoid traveling to pleasant environments to convert resources. What point are you trying to make?

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#42

Post by jaaron » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

estebank wrote: post #30

Harvey-Specter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really - you can't think of any solutions for heating and cooling houses without burning fossil fuels? Electric baseboard heaters have been a thing forever, just power those with solar or wind or nuclear and we're done. My air conditioner is already electric. Drive an electric car, and buy renewable electricity.

The problem I see though is that "drive an electric car" is interpreted all too often as "buy an electric car, and now that you're 'green', do not worry yourself about the fact that you change cars every two years and the footprint of your gas consumption is dwarfed by the footprint of actually making the cars pat self in back ".

Changing cars every two years?

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#43

Post by jniedrauer » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

jcroll wrote: post #27

jniedrauer wrote: post #26

As someone who loves being out in the wilderness, this has been fairly depressing to me. The more time I spend out there, the more I damage it. I didn't feel guilty during the winter, because I was always moving on snow, and I was generally the only one out there. But as it gets warmer and the snow melts, hoards of people from Seattle descend on the wilderness and trample it to death. And I'm one of them.

Wait, walking outside is a sin now

It is when 10,000 people want to walk in the same place

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#44

Post by eeZah7Ux » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #8

eeZah7Ux wrote: post #6

Yes. Consumerism and conspicuous consumption include travel and other services. You can instead stay home and read a book. Perhaps on a slow, eco-friendly journey every few years.

Who is it I'm saving the world for if not myself or my children?

Humanity's grand-grand-grand-grand-children.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#45

Post by FartyMcFarter » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:55 PM UTC

> “The average American causes through his/her greenhouse gas emissions the serious suffering and/or deaths of two future people.”

But if those future people are two Americans (or similar in terms of pollution), that saves four future people, doesn't it?

That was a ridiculous assumption of course, but if we're going to go utilitarian, let's go all the way.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#46

Post by fowkswe » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

happytoexplain wrote: post #25

eropple wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose? Walk. Bicycle. Use public transit. In extremity, buy an electric car (but that has issues, too). If your question is "what should people who live, heavily subsidized, in suburbs and exurbs, do?", then the answer teases itself out pretty elegantly.

Why the dismissive attitude about where people live?

If you are consciously making decisions to not live a carbon heavy life, you'd naturally choose to not live in a ex/suburb.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#47

Post by PopeDotNinja » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:57 PM UTC

estebank wrote: post #30

Harvey-Specter wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really - you can't think of any solutions for heating and cooling houses without burning fossil fuels? Electric baseboard heaters have been a thing forever, just power those with solar or wind or nuclear and we're done. My air conditioner is already electric. Drive an electric car, and buy renewable electricity.

The problem I see though is that "drive an electric car" is interpreted all too often as "buy an electric car, and now that you're 'green', do not worry yourself about the fact that you change cars every two years and the footprint of your gas consumption is dwarfed by the footprint of actually making the cars pat self in back ".

Here's a video I liked on the carbon costs associated w/ gas & electric cars. Check out video's sources for further reading.

https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM -- "Are Electric Cars Worse For The Environment? Myth Busted" -- Engineering Explained

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#48

Post by eropple » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #41

eropple wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And driving? People could just stay home, I suppose? Walk. Bicycle. Use public transit. In extremity, buy an electric car (but that has issues, too). If your question is "what should people who live, heavily subsidized, in suburbs and exurbs, do?", then the answer teases itself out pretty elegantly.

Saying people should avoid living in pleasant environments so conserve resources is nearly identical to saying people should avoid traveling to pleasant environments to convert resources. What point are you trying to make?

I could travel a lot and not get into the carbon footprint of your average 10K+-a-year commuter. So people who think those are desirable places to live should actually pay for what they consume, instead of freeloading--both economically and ecologically--off of those who do.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#49

Post by beat » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

bubblewrap wrote: post #14

fastball wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is it I'm saving the world for if not myself or my children?

He didn't say you shouldn't have kids. My kids read books, too.

Sadly, a lot of people say we shouldn't have kids because it's bad for the Earth. Which ties to poor arguments about "overpopulation".

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#50

Post by trymas » Tue, Jun 04, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

geff82 wrote: post #5

The recent argument against traveling is a proxy war. Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production. All of the points I listed can be replaced by sustainable alternatives TODAY (ok, maybe not all people in one year, but the products are available) without us having to reduce out comfort in a major way. We could travel 5 times more…

> Heating, cooling, electricity and driving are the things that make up 75% of the emissions, plus about 20% for industrial production.

I would like to append, that meat production is very significant (and probably overlooked) factor of climate change gas emissions and has colossal damage to the global ecosystem at current consumption levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_p...