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

The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

advances.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 129 posts

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#111

Post by fsloth »

johnchristopher wrote: post #63
fsloth wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State enforced private land ownership is one of the key economic fundamentals of a prosperous society. Historically societies with private land ownership have been wealthier and more inclusive than without (the alternative has been state ownership of all land). Do you have any grounds why you would want it abolished?

> Historically societies with private land ownership have been wealthier and more inclusive than without (the alternative has been state ownership of all land). Am I correct to assume you include communist and feudal regimes ?

Well, in Feudal system you don't really own the land. You can tax the peasants farming it in exchange for military services for the state. But for example you can't parcel it to small farms and sell those for their owners to keep, or anything like that. You can't use the land as your own capital, with all the financial potential of an asset.

I'd love to hear counterexamples, but that's the general gist of it in the large scale I think.

Land ownership is not a silver bullet but in general smart parcelling policies have made nations wealthier. So basically, most wealthy states today at some point in their history have issued a parcelling policy that has distributed land ownership among farms. This has made the economic basis more vibrant and more durable. And, probably also affected the evolution of their political institutions to be more inclusive.

For example, see the parcelling in my country Finland (which was Sweden at the time) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Partition_(Sweden) and earlier in British enclosure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#112

Post by ArnoVW »

ganzuul wrote: post #42
ArnoVW wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several problems with this approach. The person performing the forming would essentially be cleaning up the polution of everyone else. Terraforming would require global agreement and adherence to a highly capital-intensive enterprise. This is not unlike the discussions about limiting global warming, which are not a frank success. We currently have no means of cleaning up that is more efficient ie less costl…

You do realize the alternative is megadeath, right?

Fully agree with you that if we do nothing, we're heading for a world of pain. But I never said we should do nothing.

In fact I pointed out we already have other options. Real ones, today, that we know will work. Eat less meat. Drive less and smaller cars. Use less packaging, clothing, etc. Build smaller and better houses, that need less air-conditioning and heating. Put a price on CO2 and let the market figure it out.

But no-one likes them. So sure, if we keep sticking our heads in the sand we're heading for megadeaths. Sure, it would be nice if technology could help us get out of this mess without sacrificing our way of life.

But the technology does not exist today. And certainly not one that has a better chance of being accepted than the other measures I've already listed.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#113

Post by ArnoVW »

chr1 wrote: post #90
ArnoVW wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several problems with this approach. The person performing the forming would essentially be cleaning up the polution of everyone else. Terraforming would require global agreement and adherence to a highly capital-intensive enterprise. This is not unlike the discussions about limiting global warming, which are not a frank success. We currently have no means of cleaning up that is more efficient ie less costl…

> But to propose it as an alternative is not helpful in the current political context Suggesting that we should keep silent about a way of solving the problem, so that other people don't get "ideas", is even less helpful in any context, as you lose your credibility in the eyes of people whom you are trying to convince. > essentially be cleaning up the pollution of everyone else. Terraforming would require global agre…

It does not matter if it is toxic or not. It's a chemical byproduct that we don't want in the atmosphere. That means it's a pollutant.

Sure. Terra forming works. Conceptually. If you can manage to build a rainforest in the desert, that will fix some co2. That is not the issue. The issue is: how to build a rainforest in the desert. Technically, and economically.

Have you considered the amount of water you'd need? The irrigation system required for that? Where would the water come from? For reference, there is already a lot of geopolitics over water supply in the middle east. Have you considered how poor the soil is? How much work it would be to enrich that soil? We are already raising alarm bells regarding our phosphate stock. How would you keep the ecosystem in balance? If you can't you don't need an army of people to maintain it.

Most importantly, it would only buy you time. It would fix some of the co2 in trees. But if we continue to burn oil, we'll keep adding co2 to the atmosphere. Every barrel of oil is 430 kilos of co2. That's a lot of tree for one barrel.

And you've only fixed it temporarily. If at any time your artificial forest collapses (this being your first terra forming attempt), your trees decompose and release the co2.

Again. I'm not saying that any option should be off the table. But I do not think it benefits the already complicated debates, if we present theoretical scenarios as solutions.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#114

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

skohan wrote: post #78
afandian wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the current model. In many places the violence may be out of living memory, but it's generally all very recent.

Maybe technically there’s a threat of government violence in the background, but that’s pretty far from most people’s consciousness in developed countries. Can you propose a different model for property ownership which doesn’t require the individual to invest more resources in physical security?

Pay the non-owners enough rent to make it their economic interest to respect and protect the ownership

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#115

Post by pochamago »

tarsinge wrote: post #88
pochamago wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AC literally saves lives. Calling an invention that prevents thousands of deaths a year a bandaid seems kind of callous to me.

I’m talking AC in the context of large scale deployment in whole regions, not specifically for people with health problems and/or elderly.

It's not just the sick and elderly who die of heatstroke

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#116

Post by brockmuellers »

WilTimSon wrote: post #55
perfunctory wrote: post #10

Climate related reports are getting scarier by the day. I am scared. Really scared. Everyone should be. If I may, let me make a little plea. May I remind everyone that we are not a mere spectators of the show. We are active participants. We can influence things. We as in you and I, HN crowd. It may not seem like it, but an average HN reader has a non-trivial amount of influence. And not only in financial sense. Pleas…

> It may not seem like it, but an average HN reader has a non-trivial amount of influence. And not only in financial sense. Please, use it. What do you mean by a 'non-trivial amount of influence'? Sure, we can ask our employers to enforce climate-friendly practices and talk to friends and family, but even protesting companies that contribute the most to pollution doesn't provide much relief as they either ignore the…

A lot of what needs to happen, IMO, is culture change. Doing all of the things you mentioned is only a drop in the bucket, but one person putting in that effort normalizes it. That makes other people feel more comfortable and motivated to do the same. It might not feel like much, but it's definitely better than nothing.

Also, if you're in tech and you have the luxury of changing jobs, there are companies doing good work on climate change. Electric vehicles, solar power, making production and supply chains more efficient, etc. We can make it easy/cheaper/more pleasant for people/corporations/governments to make the right choices.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#117

Post by dredmorbius »

vwcx wrote: post #96
gonzo41 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now is the time to buy a flat-ish block of land in Alaska or Tasmania that's a little back from the waters edge. Also make sure you don't have too many tree's too close to where you want to build your doomsday cabin. :) Really you don't be between the tropics of Cancer of Capricorn. in the future

Re: Alaska, beavers are already getting there first and exasperating the climate effects upon the tundra. A fascinating read: https://alaskatrekker.com/2017/11/beavers-moving-northern-al...

s/exasperating/exacerbating/

;-)

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#118

Post by ganzuul »

ArnoVW wrote: post #112
ganzuul wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize the alternative is megadeath, right?

Fully agree with you that if we do nothing, we're heading for a world of pain. But I never said we should do nothing. In fact I pointed out we already have other options. Real ones, today, that we know will work. Eat less meat. Drive less and smaller cars. Use less packaging, clothing, etc. Build smaller and better houses, that need less air-conditioning and heating. Put a price on CO2 and let the market figure it ou…

By changing the narrative all kinds of things become possible. We see today that society can eat trillions in economic losses to save people from a virus. We can replicate this communication structure to deal with longer-term threats to the survival of our species. It is all about building up the political momentum that gets us a moonshot.

Once we are pouring resources into this project perceptions on what is acceptable energy use will also change. People will see society rowing the boat in one direction, and outliers rowing in the wrong direction (excessive emission) will be scorned.

Changing the narrative to terraforming has the potential to unite mankind, while the climate change narrative has been divisive as pollution becomes a commodity to barter for. With enough cleverness in how the idea is presented the money allotted national defense can be re-purposed for climate defense. The 'creating jobs' narrative can also be utilized. - We just need to start talking in this way that I'm prototyping here until it catches on.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#119

Post by asdkjh345fd »

dang wrote: post #105
asdkjh345fd wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not making any sense. How is people who threaten to kill poor people, continuing to threaten to kill poor people, turning the tables? I don't want to turn the tables, I don't want to threaten climate hysterics, I just want them to stop being evil.

We've banned this account. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23083315 Would you please not create accounts to break HN's guidelines with? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Well, since I don't know what guideline I broke, and you refuse to tell me, I guess the obvious answer is no.

Re: The emergence of heat and humidity too severe for human tolerance

#120

Post by fsloth »

afandian wrote: post #95
catawbasam wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is out of living memory it isn't current.

If the model establishes a system where the people who are prepared to use the most violence end up with the land, and a couple of generations their descendants still have the land, then IMHO the model is still in play. You could also argue that as the ownership is codified in laws and the state monopoly on violence keeps the oppressed in check, that threat of violence continues.

"If the model establishes a system where the people who are prepared to use the most violence end up with the land, and a couple of generations their descendants still have the land, then IMHO the model is still in play."

This is not about land ownership. Alone. You are talking about exclusive political and economic systems. In an exclusive system it's not just the ownership of land that is broken - you will find all economic activity is rigged against some segment of the society. Most well to do states are have inclusive political and and economic systems. In these societies land ownership is based on land registration and enforceable contract law - not entitlement of birth and violence.

I warmly recommend Daron Acemoglu's "Why nations fail" as it explains this topic far better than I ever could in a few sentences.

Post reply on HN