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

Mars Is No Earth

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#91

Post by Tiktaalik »

vagrantJin wrote: post #77
iab wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the issue is that we face truly existential environmental crises in the near-to-mid term, which has not been the predominant cause of strife for our history thus far (world wars, the thread of nuclear exchanges, etc.). So it is hard to say it is impossible, but it is even harder to say that it will be achievable.

> existential environmental crises in the near-to-mid term, Nah. This just comes off as alarmist. We might accelerate a naturally occuring process ever so slightly but it is by no means an exinction event. You underestimate the homo sapiens ability to adapt to their surroundings. Berbers live in deserts, eskimo in ice tundra - arguably the very extremes of human habitats. You can throw everything at them short of a s…

Good thing you're a human and not a resident orca

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#92

Post by qayxc »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #75
qayxc wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that it's not Musk's job to fix these issues. I just take issue with his (and especially his devout followers') claims that electric cars are any sort of "fix" apart from air pollution in densely populated areas. They're a band-aid at most. By the way Musk did and still does claim to provide "fixes" for these problems: tunnels, hyperloops, and point-to-point rocket flights, because "I would love to see m…

> I just take issue with his (and especially his devout followers') claims that electric cars are any sort of "fix" apart from air pollution in densely populated areas. They're a band-aid at most. Oh come on. Electric cars are a fix, just not a total fix. Cars are going to be replaced by new cars anyway, and replacing them with electric instead of ICE is strictly, objectively better for the climate problem, as it cut…

> It's also a completely orthogonal problem.

See THIS is were I disagree completely. An electric car that replaces an ICE is NOT better than an ICE car that's not being replaced at all (be that by using it longer or by simply not needing it anymore).

Actual fixes exist and I listed some of them. You don't even have to get rid of all cars - it'd already be a huge step forward if the average number of personally owned cars per capita went down below 1.

You see, the problem with seeing electric cars as ANY sort of fix or improvement is that it's actually preventing much needed change from happening. This has nothing to do with any bullshit philosophy matters - it's just a facts-based assessment of the situation.

There's even more to the whole fixation on personal transport by means of automobile that I didn't even touch on. Not a single traffic problem will go away with electric cars and the inefficient and destructive suburban lifestyle will be actively supported even longer. Again, and I can't stress this enough - if you actually care about climate change and efficiency, you need to change your LIFESTYLE, not your car.

Lipstick on a pig...

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#93

Post by TeMPOraL »

qayxc wrote: post #92
TeMPOraL wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just take issue with his (and especially his devout followers') claims that electric cars are any sort of "fix" apart from air pollution in densely populated areas. They're a band-aid at most. Oh come on. Electric cars are a fix, just not a total fix. Cars are going to be replaced by new cars anyway, and replacing them with electric instead of ICE is strictly, objectively better for the climate problem, as it cut…

> It's also a completely orthogonal problem. See THIS is were I disagree completely. An electric car that replaces an ICE is NOT better than an ICE car that's not being replaced at all (be that by using it longer or by simply not needing it anymore). Actual fixes exist and I listed some of them. You don't even have to get rid of all cars - it'd already be a huge step forward if the average number of personally owned…

Yup, we disagree here. I still see it as orthogonal.

> An electric car that replaces an ICE is NOT better than an ICE car that's not being replaced at all (be that by using it longer or by simply not needing it anymore).

That's not on the table, though. People who now drive ICE cars will continue to replace their cars. The immediate choice is between buying an ICE and buying an electric, and the latter is strictly better. Over time, this will eventually (hopefully) replace ICE cars with electrics.

> ANY sort of fix or improvement is that it's actually preventing much needed change from happening

It's not preventing anything, as new cars are going to be bought anyway. You can argue that it reduces perceived urgency of reducing the number of cars on the road. That I'm willing to admit.

> Not a single traffic problem will go away with electric cars and the inefficient and destructive suburban lifestyle will be actively supported even longer.

True. But that's exactly orthogonal to the idea that, ceteris paribus, replacing ICEs with electric is an improvement.

> if you actually care about climate change and efficiency, you need to change your LIFESTYLE, not your car.

Yeah, that ain't gonna happen at scale, though. There are three tried-and-true ways to get people to change their lifestyles: economic pressure, religion and new technologies. Just asking isn't going to help.

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#94

Post by simonebrunozzi »

ldbooth wrote: post #84
bryanlarsen wrote: post #25

> Someone in his position could do so many things on our little blue dot itself to help those in need. She's talking about the man who accelerated our transition to electric cars by years, who is significantly lowering the cost and acceptability of solar power, is enabling the transition of the grid to renewables through the Tesla Megapacks, is pouring billions into battery R&D which will be critical to a green trans…

Lowered the cost of solar power? He acquired his cousins company and idled it, tough business, resi, more of a securitization play. I support the mans intent nonetheless, hard to hit all homeruns at his scale. But for the record you could say Germany (paying high FIT conract rates) and China (scaling module mfg capacity) did a lot more for solar, granted those are nation states it should still be a complement. But ze…

You're comparing an entire country vs a single man. Not fair.

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#95

Post by vagrantJin »

iab wrote: post #83
vagrantJin wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> existential environmental crises in the near-to-mid term, Nah. This just comes off as alarmist. We might accelerate a naturally occuring process ever so slightly but it is by no means an exinction event. You underestimate the homo sapiens ability to adapt to their surroundings. Berbers live in deserts, eskimo in ice tundra - arguably the very extremes of human habitats. You can throw everything at them short of a s…

Adaption will happen, for sure. But you agree with my fears in this paragraph, in concluding that resource wars aren't out of the question. In this context, how could anyone envision that we will have the means, and will, to successfully colonize another planet on a timescale where the most continuous extra-terrestrial presence we have had is in low-earth-orbit? The timelines just don't marry up.

A lot of will is required for sure.

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#96

Post by ldbooth »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #94
ldbooth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lowered the cost of solar power? He acquired his cousins company and idled it, tough business, resi, more of a securitization play. I support the mans intent nonetheless, hard to hit all homeruns at his scale. But for the record you could say Germany (paying high FIT conract rates) and China (scaling module mfg capacity) did a lot more for solar, granted those are nation states it should still be a complement. But ze…

You're comparing an entire country vs a single man. Not fair.

> granted those are nation states it should still be a complement.

To be fair then: Tom Werner of Sunpower, Dan Shugar of NextTracker, Employees at Bell Laboratories (created the first solar cell), Employees at SunEdison (created the Solar PPA, the backbone of even Musk's solar financing) all have done more for Solar Photovoltaics. I don't know who to credit at First Solar but, surely someone: these are all the Solar OG's.

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#97

Post by fallingfrog »

tom_mellior wrote: post #87
fallingfrog wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“ This individualistic struggle to survive is what culturally has led to the huge technological innovations in the west.” I don’t think that is the consensus view. It was more to do with the university system, the scientific method, and the invention of capital markets. That and a huge influx of free resources and gold that came from the discovery of the Americas. Also of course the Middle East was annihilated by Ghe…

> free resources and gold that came from robbing the Americas Fixed that for you (agree with the rest).

Correct, I should have put “free” in scare quotes, lol. Stolen is more accurate.

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#98

Post by dehrmann »

andrewfromx wrote: post #34
dehrmann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be easier to survive on earth engulfed in a dust cloud than Mars.

Touché. That's the best argument I've heard yet. Tsunamis too I guess. Everything that killed the Dinos we humans can protect against easier than living on mars?

Check out the Wikipedia page on living fossils: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

There are a number of species alive today that existed in a similar form when the dinosaurs were alive.

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#99

Post by incrudible »

qayxc wrote: post #53
incrudible wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earth is not paradise, on a timeframe of tens of thousands of years it is a volatile place that could blow us up in an instant. Terraforming and space mining are absolute necessities for human survival. You really only can argue that maybe it is one or two centuries too early to think about colonizing Mars, but you gotta start somewhere.

> Terraforming and space mining are absolute necessities for human survival. Is that so? Which timeframe are we talking about then, because for the entirety of humankind's existence, including its ancestors (so going back at least 4 million years), Earth was a mighty fine place to be. The occasional ice age didn't stop our non-technological ancestors from spreading all over the globe either. > You really only can arg…

I guess we're disagreeing about various highly speculative parameters there. Let's put that aside for a second: Life belongs on planets. Free-floating habitats are the soylent of living arrangements.

Re: Mars Is No Earth

#100

Post by johnjj257 »

qayxc wrote: post #59
johnjj257 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rofl wow man you can trash anything must be nice to just shit on geniune development and call it crap. The issue is the article actually had a tired argument, your broken attempt to reframe electric cars as useless is really bizarre and not fitting at all to the sentiment it just points out how shallow and negative you are being

> shit on geniune development and call it crap. That "genuine development" you talk about is over 140 years old. In fact the very first cars in mass use were electric and it was only later ICE cars became more popular due their advantages (back then). It's not a new or even great development at all if nothing changes in the end - you still need to build these cars, old ICE cars won't just disappear either - they'll b…

ROFL NO. The entire sentiment is a kids argument and you sound like a crying kid and a hater.

No one's gonna refute the ""arguments"" because it's a fucking long dipshit statement of epic proportions. Who wants to argue with a 5 year old?

Post reply on HN