Live data from Hacker News

Are we running out of resources?

tokcast-bretthall-31ddc0.netlify.app

111–120 of 204 posts

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to formulate the problem in broad strokes. I say we have on the one hand huge amounts of wealth in the hands of very few individuals on the one hand, and lots of people that do not have enough on the other. There is a competition for resources and something needs to be changed. I hope you accept that is a fair if broad formulation of the problem. If you are neutral in approaching this, and trying to find a…

How much wealth do you think would be redistributed if governments confiscated all the assets you think are held be billionaires? There just isn’t that much wealth to be expropriated. It wouldn’t go very far. So no, I don’t think you’ll get broad agreement that confiscating wealth from the very rich is even numerically a viable strategy. Not to mention the fact that historically expropriation isn’t exactly associated…

Its an impossible answer. I don't think it is a viable strategy either.

I don't think you are right about how much wealth the rich hold. The middle class would not need to be taxed. The illegitimate ruling class should just have the bulk of their wealth confiscated (at least according to the proposal I am trying to air here). The billionaires would still live well, but the rest of would have a chance to utilise all the assets that are currently being sequestrated away from us.

We see articles such as, 'World's 26 richest people own as much as poorest 50%, says Oxfam':

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/21/world-26-ri...

I think this is a joke - we don't even know who holds what as it is all in off-shore, tax free funds and trusts, shares, etc. So the true amounts of wealth are bound to be far higher. Also, if it were possible to resolve the ownership structure, you would see that everything is owned by individuals - only living people own things. People direct the trusts, own the funds, corporations etc.

What I'm trying to get across is the fact that if we were genuinely seeking solutions, releasing this stockpiled wealth would be the simplest. It would be at least deserving of some consideration. And I'm not talking about releasing it into an NGO that directs how culture is to be created.

But we have the opposite - we are moving into a complex, AI managed world, where the poor are going to be paying carbon taxes, water taxes, have more expensive electricity and be unable to ever consider owning anything for themselves. This won't mean that ownership as a concept will have gone - it will mean the billionaire class will own everything, and the rest of us will be demoted to serfs, aka overt slavery.

But as I said I don't think this is viable answer either.

And I'm not sure what the right answer could be. For a start governments are a problem - they do not act for people, they are beholden to corporate interests. The legal system is also a problem - it only works for the rich - how can it be ok for the richest to pay no tax? Let's all not pay tax! Let's pay for the services we want. But, government has become a comfort blanket for most - most people are happy to pay 40% of their income to have their bins collected.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#112

"Should any particular resource begin to run short, our creativity will bring into being the knowledge of how to replace that resource from either some other source or by using some other means to accomplish what that resource did." The track record on this appears to be 100%. Are there any examples of a resource humanity has depleted and not effectively replaced or otherwise made irrelevant?

There is an inherent contradiction in the article in that he argues that we can use a resource more efficiently or replace it while simultaneously arguing for ever more wasteful uses of the very same resources. You can only choose one.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#113
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the inhabitants of Easter Island.

> A settler on Easter Island stood beside the island’s last tree. He or she looked around the treeless horizon, every one of those trees removed by man, and chopped it down anyway. Afterwards, the island died — the nutrients washed away, the landscape stripped. The population collapsed into warfare and cannibalism. I have always had a hard time believing this story. It assumes these Easter Island people were really d…

There is a very big island called madagascar that has experienced extensive deforestation.

https://youtu.be/L9zWDtDKDS8?t=65

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much wealth do you think would be redistributed if governments confiscated all the assets you think are held be billionaires? There just isn’t that much wealth to be expropriated. It wouldn’t go very far. So no, I don’t think you’ll get broad agreement that confiscating wealth from the very rich is even numerically a viable strategy. Not to mention the fact that historically expropriation isn’t exactly associated…

Its an impossible answer. I don't think it is a viable strategy either. I don't think you are right about how much wealth the rich hold. The middle class would not need to be taxed. The illegitimate ruling class should just have the bulk of their wealth confiscated (at least according to the proposal I am trying to air here). The billionaires would still live well, but the rest of would have a chance to utilise all t…

You refuse to say what you mean by 'confiscated' or how that might work. Until you do so, it's meaningless and impossible to evaluate as an option. Frankly, you don't seem to have the slightest conception what 'wealth' actually is.

Wealth is control of economic assets - companies, resources and property. Transferring wealth means transferring that control. For example it means taking Tesla away from Elon Musk and giving it to someone else. So what I'm asking is, who would that control go to and how would it be exercised to better serve the average person? If you can't answer that question, you're not making a proposal it's possible to evaluate. I may disagree with Marxists, but at least they have an answer to this question.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#115
post #48

There were a lot of words here to simply fall back on the argument that innovation will solve every problem and do so before there is significant suffering. I agree that life will always go on, but this idea that consumption and quality of life can do nothing but rise when it is so dependent on the limited cheap energy and resources that we only learned to exploit a century ago is insanity to me. Our ever increasing…

What he is pointing out is the long history of doomsaying being wrong, because it implicitly depends on the assumption that technology has reached its peak and cannot further improve. To get a real doomsaying argument, you have to base it not on details of current technology, but on hard physical limits that no technological improvement can evade. And it's really tough to do that. The population limit for Earth based…

What about the argument that technological growth and developments are the cause, or at least a catalyst, of all our problems rather than some part of the solution?

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#116
post #53
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he is pointing out is the long history of doomsaying being wrong, because it implicitly depends on the assumption that technology has reached its peak and cannot further improve. To get a real doomsaying argument, you have to base it not on details of current technology, but on hard physical limits that no technological improvement can evade. And it's really tough to do that. The population limit for Earth based…

The question is not "if" but "when". Sure renewables are becoming bigger every day but will we have enough of them before getting into climate catastrophe ? That's the question...

Define "catastrophe".

Are we already in one?

I do expect our emissions to get almost halved during this decade, and for carbon capture to become a practical thing on the next one. But depending on what you want, even this isn't enough.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "many options" I'm talking about are otherwise known as "left-wing politics". Unionisation, building a cooperative-based economy, UBI (though for some reason this has right-wing support too), minimum wages, nationalising important industries and resources, building systems of mutual aid, honestly I could go on for a while. Equality versus hierarchy is what the left-right political struggle is about, after all.

Apparently those options are not good enough to be implemented. - Unionisation - helped for a while, then those companies where it was implemented didn't survive because they could not make anything effectively. - building a cooperative-based economy - would be nice in theory if all people could cooperate. But in reality, they do not, there will be freewheelers who game the system. - UBI - not tried yet is the only d…

> Apparently those options are not good enough to be implemented.

These options have actively been opposed by those in power, because left wing politics weaken their power. Case in point, all those coups backed by the US government against left-wing governments.

> Unionisation - helped for a while, then those companies where it was implemented didn't survive because they could not make anything effectively.

Not true - Hollywood is heavily unionised to this day. I'm curious to know why you believe this though; is it just an assumption because we don't see many union shops these days, or do you have other reasons to believe this? Because there are other reasons to credit for the lack of unions nowadays, namely anti-union propaganda and deliberate weakening of unions by neoliberal politicians (which is basically all of them nowadays, but Reagan and Thatcher are the classic anti-union tag team).

> - building a cooperative-based economy - would be nice in theory if all people could cooperate. But in reality, they do not, there will be freewheelers who game the system.

That's not what a cooperative economy is. A cooperative economy is an economy based in cooperatives; basically a company but owned by the people who work there.

> UBI - not tried yet is the only difference between UBI and communism

At least we're in agreement that UBI could be good. Love the 'real communism has never been tried' reference though.

> minimum wages - we have minimum wages in Poland, they don't help that much, but weren't updated and inflation eaten them away.

Yes, minimum wages should be pegged to standards of living. Otherwise politicians intentionally don't update them so they become redundant.

> nationalising important industries and resources - all nationalised resources are being wasted away for political reasons sooner or later. I know this from practice

That's not universally true. They're certainly trying to disassemble nationalised healthcare here in the UK, but it's usually done by right-wing politicians who are anti-nationalisation anyway.

> building systems of mutual aid - that helps, but if nationalised - they are squandered for political reasons. If commercial - being squandered due to greed. But yes, they are mostly working in most countries.

Mutual aid is community networks of people who help each other out, not a national or economic political project.

I do understand the skepticism around leftist politics - after all, many have failed under pressure from right-wing power structures. Some have devolved into worse systems than the ones they opposed (though it's important to point out that libertarian socialists and anarchists opposed the USSR right from the beginning). But don't assume that because leftism is not currently winning, it's because it's inherently flawed, rather than facing a stronger opponent that must be overcome.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The multistory rather than merely spacious homes and 'pool' with the implication of a private pool, which are both very space inefficient make this seem foolish to me, but I see no issue with billions of people living in cities with easy access to pools, parks, schooling, jobs, and comfortable safe, warm/cool housing and living standards that are science fiction to their immediate ancestors.

This is one of the reasons we need to be expanding the space for collective resources - it's not likely we can sustain a world where everyone on earth lives in a single family detached home in the suburbs with a car, private heated pool, private air conditioning etc that the author advocates for. However, if we're a little more clever with how we allocate and share our resources, we can scale up standards of living i…

> it's not likely we can sustain a world where everyone on earth lives in a single family detached home in the suburbs with a car, private heated pool, private air conditioning etc

Car traffic and road maintenance are limiting factors here, but I don't see any reason why the private air conditioning and even heating a pool (the space for a private pool, on the other hand is a traffic generator) would be limited by energy availability.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to formulate the problem in broad strokes. I say we have on the one hand huge amounts of wealth in the hands of very few individuals on the one hand, and lots of people that do not have enough on the other. There is a competition for resources and something needs to be changed. I hope you accept that is a fair if broad formulation of the problem. If you are neutral in approaching this, and trying to find a…

How much wealth do you think would be redistributed if governments confiscated all the assets you think are held be billionaires? There just isn’t that much wealth to be expropriated. It wouldn’t go very far. So no, I don’t think you’ll get broad agreement that confiscating wealth from the very rich is even numerically a viable strategy. Not to mention the fact that historically expropriation isn’t exactly associated…

In theory you dont have to confiscate wealth or assets for this idea, you could just prevent share owners from taking out and spending more than X per year. And/or have high income tax at the top end of the scale without expropriation of assets. There is a precedent for the viability of this, most billionaire company owners don't take out all their stock and attempt to spend it in their lifetime. People who build up huge enterprises seem happy that others and future generations benefit. Some try to spend it on good causes before they die. An unspendably large pay check or comparatively small pay check compared to company growth does not seem to stop people from trying to build up the business to the day they die. It seems it's power/success rather than cash that is the driver. Many people are happy to have the company own the yacht they are swanning around on.

Re: Are we running out of resources?

#120
post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its an impossible answer. I don't think it is a viable strategy either. I don't think you are right about how much wealth the rich hold. The middle class would not need to be taxed. The illegitimate ruling class should just have the bulk of their wealth confiscated (at least according to the proposal I am trying to air here). The billionaires would still live well, but the rest of would have a chance to utilise all t…

You refuse to say what you mean by 'confiscated' or how that might work. Until you do so, it's meaningless and impossible to evaluate as an option. Frankly, you don't seem to have the slightest conception what 'wealth' actually is. Wealth is control of economic assets - companies, resources and property. Transferring wealth means transferring that control. For example it means taking Tesla away from Elon Musk and giv…

I'm not refusing to say. I just don't know what agency could do it - they are all captured and run by the elite class already!
Post reply on HN