What Will Happen in the 2020s • Hacker News Board

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#661

Post by zik » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 3:30 AM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #444

zik wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check the rate of nuclear power plants being built. It's fallen off a cliff. The people who finance nuclear reactors already think that nuclear power will be uneconomic in the lifetime of any new plants.

I looked that up. There are 450 plants in operation worldwide and 50 under construction. That sounds like healthy growth. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an...

There are a lot being decommissioned at the moment too. I'm not sure if that's more or less than the 50 that the World Nuclear Association page claims are being constructed.

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#662

Post by rlue » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

SllX wrote: post #657

ace_of_spades wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As there seem to be very few comments actually defending the ethical vegan standpoint here I go. Vegans who ask for „sin taxes“ don‘t want to piss you off, they simply have the belief (and actually quite well justifiable so) that meat consumption leads to quite a lot of suffering in the world. You don’t seem to be opposed to taxes on ghg emissions - presumably because you believe that they cause suffering. Why is it…

Your assumption is wrong. The tax I would support is entirely theoretical and would raise the prices of all industrial products on the market from all forms of food to all forms of textiles and all forms of computers and machinery. I suspect that if it were ever implemented properly to begin with, it would become a target to steer into a kind of sin tax or luxury tax by doubling the rate on this or that product or ze…

Sure, parent comment made a faulty assumption about your policy preferences and the reasons you have for them. In responding to this grievance, you've entirely missed their point: the consumption of meat is above all else a moral issue—yes, a sin—and making other lifestyle choices of below-average ecological impact do not make up for it.

I could elaborate, but I don't expect to change your mind; you've already stated outright that you're determined not to. In any case, I'm not here to cast blame on you personally for eating meat. I still do it, too.

It's a shame about your stubbornness, though. You seem to be smart enough to engage in careful, reasoned analysis about a complex issue. In fact, I'd wager that you'd scoff at an anti-vaxxer or a Holocaust denier who shared the strength of your convictions. Of course, scientific and historical truth are a little more objective than basic moral principles—but when it comes to the way animals are manufactured in America today, not by much.

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#663

Post by cable2600 » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

bergie wrote: post #615

gfodor wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a fallacy when making ten year predictions to assume nothing will change in order to lead to the prediction. Presumably for the idea of plant based diets to dominate, there will need to be an available substitute for meat which is competitive economically and in taste.

It might be enough to force near prices to include their environmental impact. I think that's what the post says about meat becoming like caviar. So it would still be available, just way too expensive for every day meals.

Jacking up meat prices would upset a lot of people. Meat-substitutes would have to be cheaper than they are now. Food By Products are already used in meat as filler. Like ground beef and hamburgers have cereal or soy in them.

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#664

Post by SllX » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 5:36 AM UTC

rlue wrote: post #662

SllX wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assumption is wrong. The tax I would support is entirely theoretical and would raise the prices of all industrial products on the market from all forms of food to all forms of textiles and all forms of computers and machinery. I suspect that if it were ever implemented properly to begin with, it would become a target to steer into a kind of sin tax or luxury tax by doubling the rate on this or that product or ze…

Sure, parent comment made a faulty assumption about your policy preferences and the reasons you have for them. In responding to this grievance, you've entirely missed their point: the consumption of meat is above all else a moral issue—yes, a sin—and making other lifestyle choices of below-average ecological impact do not make up for it. I could elaborate, but I don't expect to change your mind; you've already stated…

I didn’t engage his point because I’ve taken it as a given that we’ll have to agree to disagree. There’s too much conviction on both sides to take that one in any meaningful direction. To some, to you and to the one I replied to, it is a moral issue. I’m not going to convince anyone that it isn’t a moral issue anymore than they will convince me that it is.

There isn’t a lot that is objective, even scientific and historical truths are often less scientific, less historic and less truthful than we think they are. I take a live and let live approach to the voluntary choices of others precisely because I’m not morally superior, nor do I endeavor to be. In return, I don’t accept that the choices they have made are morally superior to my own. They’re just living their lives according to their beliefs and I don’t want to take that away from them, nor do I want them to take away my choices nor to be punished for them. Life is too short, fleeting and full of suffering and choices to start making choices for other people. I do not, and I would wager you do not, have the status, position or occupational license to cast judgements upon others that aren’t our children, charges, employees or elected representatives. Even these limited forms of subordination have their limits.

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#665

Post by danans » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 6:15 AM UTC

nobrains wrote: post #619

danans wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of those Muslims are in poorer countries (think Indonesia and Bangladesh, and not Saudi Arabia), and could never afford to eat meat in the daily quantities eaten in the West, the Gulf, and increasingly in the wealthier population of China. Their regular diet consists largely of cereal grains, legumes, vegetables, and small amounts of meat to supplement, and even that is mostly cheaper to produce/acq…

Well, that's an interesting angle, i.e their consumption of meat can be looked as a one time / 2 times a year treat at special occasions, with non-meat products for the rest of the year.

It could even be once a week and it would still have a dramatic effect on GHG emissions. But as others have noted, it's too big a problem to rely on individually motivated behavior change. The price has to go up for it to be considered precious.

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#666

Post by __d » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 6:23 AM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #373

__d wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an effective carbon tax is introduced (see #1) then the price of meat will rise astronomically, which will make reduced consumption inevitable. In many places, climate change will make existing agriculture unsustainable, so there'll be massive upheaval in the industry at the same time. If that's combined with a cultural movement similar to flugskam, I think drastically reduced meat consumption is possible. Of cour…

I buy carbon offsets based on a questionnaire about lifestyle. It works out to about $180-220 USD per year, depending on whether I take a vacation by flying to Europe. If that were factored into prices as a tax I don't think it would count as an astronomical increase. But perhaps the questionnaire and algorithm from terrapass is deficient in some way. What are you basing your calculations off of?

A quick look at Terrapass, and their individual calculator, doesn't seem include any information about diet? Perhaps I was looking at the wrong one?

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#667

Post by rlue » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 8:07 AM UTC

SllX wrote: post #664

rlue wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, parent comment made a faulty assumption about your policy preferences and the reasons you have for them. In responding to this grievance, you've entirely missed their point: the consumption of meat is above all else a moral issue—yes, a sin—and making other lifestyle choices of below-average ecological impact do not make up for it. I could elaborate, but I don't expect to change your mind; you've already stated…

I didn’t engage his point because I’ve taken it as a given that we’ll have to agree to disagree. There’s too much conviction on both sides to take that one in any meaningful direction. To some, to you and to the one I replied to, it is a moral issue. I’m not going to convince anyone that it isn’t a moral issue anymore than they will convince me that it is. There isn’t a lot that is objective, even scientific and hist…

> I’m not going to convince anyone that it isn’t a moral issue anymore than they will convince me that it is.

This is really unfortunate. An anti-vaxxer knows that it’s a question of science, just as a Holocaust denier knows that it’s a question of historical record (even if they lack the scientific/historical literacy to see through the counterfactual narratives they’ve bought into). There’s insurmountable conviction on both sides—but one is right and the other is not (for all practical purposes, as elusive as objective truth is).

To refuse to even consider the moral angle—I’d be tempted to call it bad faith, but I don’t get that impression from you at all. Rather, it seems to be this:

> I take a live and let live approach to the voluntary choices of others precisely because I’m not morally superior, nor do I endeavor to be.

Taken to the extreme, the live-and-let-live / agree-to-disagree philosophy exhorts us to put down difficult questions simply because they are difficult (or seem unactionable), and to simply accept the status quo for what it is. But the moral implications of your actions do not go away simply because you choose not to examine them, or because they were the default configuration presented by the time and place you were born in.

---

You’re right though; I’m not qualified to pass moral judgment on anyone, and that’s not what I mean when I say it’s a moral question. Moral virtue isn’t a contest or a report card.

Am I morally superior to a 19th-century plantation owner? (Were all slaveowners equally bad?) If I were raised in his family, as part of that society, what reason do I have to believe I’d do any different? If the answer is “none”, then why do we study history? and what makes me better than that guy?

It's not within my power to change the way things are. But the willingness to consider that the way things are isn't right might be a start.

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#668

Post by jpmoral » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 11:26 AM UTC

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #543

yesenadam wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How tall will my children grow up to be on a plant based diet? I want my children to grow up to be stronger than those around them. Well, oxen manage to be strong as an ox on a 100% plant-based diet. Giraffes get pretty tall too.

Lions, sharks and polar bears are also very strong, on a carnivorous diet. What does that says about human nutrition? Absolutely nothing.

I think you reinforced their point.

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#669

Post by tluyben2 » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 11:34 AM UTC

SllX wrote: post #659

tluyben2 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are so many nice dishes that don't have or need meat. I think a large thing is that people don't experiment much with their food. I have to travel a lot for work and especially in Asia and Africa, there are tons of dishes which are easy to make but very rich in flavour and much more 'refined' (in my opinion) than having a slab of meat on my plate. I sometimes think I want a steak, but after 2 bites I start thin…

It’s all about the spices and sauces. Doesn’t matter if you’re cooking steak or tofu, it doesn’t have to be boring.

Well some people, including the young me, would send steaks with spices and sauces back. I liked them thick, bloody and without anything. Somehow I always thought that most cooks put way too much salt on really good meat so I asked, in restaurants as (annoying) little boy, to leave the salt and spices and would send it back if it had any. It was a short phase I guess. Now I find it boring.

But you are right; you can make exciting food with mostly anything. Even, god forbid, veggies! (seems that angry meat eaters are also dead against anything that resembles a vegetable; they eat the steak, leave everything else on the plate).

Re: What Will Happen in the 2020s

#670

Post by haihaibye » Fri, Jan 03, 2020, 1:24 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #443

andrewem wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall a discussion of this point on HN a long time ago, but GPS is only one way to charge taxes based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) - another, which is less invasive, is just to read the vehicle's odometer on some regular basis, either by hand when doing an annual vehicle safety inspection, or automatically by having the vehicle transmit the data. Certainly those have risks of tampering, but so does GPS.

Or report your odometer reading every time you renew your registration with steep fines for lying. Or simply add a tax on new cars. Those who drive a lot will have to replace their vehicles more often and pay more tax.

Taxing newer, more fuel efficient vehicles is counter productive.