Live data from Hacker News

My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

dana11235.medium.com

491–500 of 520 posts

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History is not littered with civilizations that got universal computation and computers to execute them. Again there is no certainty in life, but to say that this civilization is not very different than others before it is in my view ahistorial.

> History is not littered with civilizations that got universal computation and computers to execute them. All countries have this now. How's this relevant to the point that less complacent countries will eclipse more complacent ones?

almost a billion people dont have reliable access to energy a large part of them dont have any at all

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History is not littered with civilizations that got universal computation and computers to execute them. Again there is no certainty in life, but to say that this civilization is not very different than others before it is in my view ahistorial.

All civilizations are very different than others before. I am not convinced that universal computation is enough of a game changer to make us different enough. Older civs each had access to tech the ones before hadn't. The one constant is human behaviour.

the difference is that with computers we have ai and with modern forms of energy we have machines and knowledge previous generations couldnt even think about.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding vertical farms in cities. You generally need about 1 acre of farm land per (American) person per year. A vertical farm can squeeze about 5 acres of horizontal farm land into one acre of vertical farm land. If NYC (proper) has 8.4M residents, then you need about 1.7M acres of vertical farms. For reference, NYC (proper) is about 200K acres right now. (The NYC metro area has 20M residents over 8.5M acres.) It'…

> It's doable, but it will require an enormous expenditure in infrastructure, so good luck. It's simply one among many possible resolutions to soil erosion. There need not be a single solution. Soil erosion won't kill all traditional farming practices, and vertical farms can simply make up part of the difference (and progressively more if soil erosion isn't tackled directly). > Likely, the places that are unaffected…

> It's simply one among many possible resolutions to soil erosion. There need not be a single solution. Soil erosion won't kill all traditional farming practices, and vertical farms can simply make up part of the difference (and progressively more if soil erosion isn't tackled directly).

I think vertical farming is a great idea, and I think crop rotation and planting native species are great ideas. I just think all the sustainable long term solutions are a hard sell in the short term, and people tend to think and invest on the short term. Theoretically, a government could used sticks and carrots to get these things done, but I don't see the American government pulling that off effectively.

> You just described that regulations require demonstration of any new development's water access for 100 years, which is exactly the kind of planning, cooperation, and commitment you said we need. Clearly we are capable of it when necessary.

You got me. I think that resolution is an exception, not the rule. In any case, water shortages are a real thing.

> Cultural views on nearly every issue have changed dramatically in each generation.

I don't see that from my perspective. I see a lot of the same taboos and biases perpetuated from generation to generation, across all cultures. Young people lean progressive, and then they lean conservative twenty years later.

I don't think circumstances effect people's behavior until it they affects them personally, but then it's too late.

Obviously this isn't true for everyone. Some people will not change their behavior under any circumstances, e.g., Representative Steve Scalise fighting gun control after getting shot in a mass shooting.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#494
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think technology will result in a great outcome for humanity as long as our greed is checked somehow. Most of the problems today are caused by our greed. I’m no MIT scholar nor as educated as most of you here, but from a anecdotal ground level I have seen it really seems some people at various positions from a office manager all the way to the highest political offices are driven by greed. Their greed usually resul…

The problem is defining “greed”. It feels like when I want more stuff per unit time/effort, I’m just “trying to support my family and build a better life for my children”. But when other people do the same, it’s “greedy”. Is there any definition of “greedy” we could use for the purposes of this discussion that would apply yo all humans equally?

I have a trick to define greed: pauses. A bad greed impulse based system won't survive a stop, it's a hog, a leak .. it needs to keep going to survive.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#495

I love that there's a "technology will fix things" model. This assumes we'll discover some magical bullet, that we haven't thought of, that will counteract erosion of topsoil, water shortages, and climate change. Another implicit assumption is that we'll be able to move forward unilaterally with such a solution, instead of it becoming a political football until it's too late to do anything, like climate change. A lot…

I kinda believe about a few tech based `deii-ex machina` but to me the most potent tool for solving this is just stop following consumerism. If all urban dwellers stopped using cars, and spent more times doing simpler activities, you'd have less importations, less consumption.. maybe this time can be used on fixing house energy expenditures, renewing biosphere a bit. We're sitting on a 8Billions man hour bucket.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only ones creating trouble were the fbi informants that were there as agitators. Why haven't these people been charged yet? The rest were let and even motioned in. They took a tour and left peacefully when asked.

Please tell me this is supposed to be a joke and that you don't seriously think this, given the ocean of literal video evidence out there.

Evidence like this? https://rumble.com/vh52u9-watch-u.s.-capitol-police-gave-pro...

https://twitter.com/i/status/1347596278583197698

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you count the externalities of nuclear (eventually having to abandon a city every hundred years or so), gas (some pollution, catastrophic climate change), and coal (pollution, catastrophic climate change), wind and solar look really cheap. Hydro can also be useful by creating reservoirs of fresh water for managing drought cycles. The biggest issue is that we don’t monetize the externalities in the current state.

The biggest issue is that the costs of not changing anything will have to be paid long after the next election, so why do something today?

I always assume humans want their offspring to survive, but COVID taught us that a lot of people will gladly work for our extinction.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#498
post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is nobody gets to build a fortune in the billions from saving up their salary. The principal way to do it is through ownership and control of a company. So what's the alternative to private individuals founding companies, finding ways to provide valuable goods and services, employ lots of people and grow successful businesses. Is that something we want to discourage? I think we all benefit from having hard…

I don't think it's black and white. I have no issue with someone starting a business and becoming hundreds of times more wealthy than the median American. However, I think that's a lot different than becoming thousands of times more wealthy. Opposition to addressing inequality in the US tends to take the form of arguing that the rich worked harder, earned their wealth, are more valuable, etc.; therefore, it is immora…

I think if you're opposed to people obtaining that much wealth is, how do you stop them? How do you prevent Elon Musk from investing heavily in Tesla, growing the company and ending up owning billions of dollars worth of it's shares?

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#499
post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's all fine if you want a 100% processed food diet. Some of us want to eat less-processed food than that, and save the "treat" foods for treat times. In Toronto there is a decades-long established vegan restaurant called Buddha's Vegetarian Restaurant. They make a lot of mock meat products that are as realistic as the Impossible Burger, by layering and preparing things in such a way that they end up resembling me…

But are they "not mainstream" or just "not affordable"?

One of the great things about this restaurant is that it was super cheap. $5 could easily get lunch for two, which would consist of noodles, vegetables, some type of imitated meat chunks or cubes with sauce, and tea back when I used to go there. And it tasted really quite good. According to their current menu, you can still eat well there for less than $10 per person, and they have a whole lot more items than they did back then.

Re: My take on the study from MIT that predicts “societal collapse”

#500

I love that there's a "technology will fix things" model. This assumes we'll discover some magical bullet, that we haven't thought of, that will counteract erosion of topsoil, water shortages, and climate change. Another implicit assumption is that we'll be able to move forward unilaterally with such a solution, instead of it becoming a political football until it's too late to do anything, like climate change. A lot…

> This assumes we'll discover some magical bullet, that we haven't thought of, that will counteract erosion of topsoil, water shortages, and climate change. Who says we haven't thought of it? There are plenty of candidates technologies, like moving food production into cities via vertical farms so top soil erosion is irrelevant. Lab grown is on the short-term horizon as well (5-10 years). Water shortages are a non-is…

> but people will simply move away from the areas where it's no longer cost effective to live

There will be huge migration waves, that is expected.

Post reply on HN