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

The Swerve

locusmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 207 posts

Re: The Swerve

#81

Post by TaylorAlexander »

dash2 wrote: post #57

Respectfully suggest this is nonsense. No serious climate scientist thinks we are going to fall off a cliff. There will be huge costs, yes. Civilization won't end, no. What people fail to grasp is that costs can be absolutely enormous but look like a blip compared to the effect of GDP growth in the long run. World War II is an example. The millions of deaths barely show up on a graph of world population. The huge los…

I don't think the cliff in the article is referring to the phenomenon of a climate cliff. I think that is taking it too literally. I DO think climate change will be a disaster for humanity if we do nothing. It's not a sudden event by any means. The disaster will take decades of inaction and acceleration before we realize we are in it.

But the analogy, which is that we are headed for a disaster and at this point we must take rapid drastic action to avoid it, I think is correct. Rapid action means making decisions now to commit to decades of repair work. It means immediately stopping new climate bomb projects. On the scale of a society, change that takes decades is akin to swerving a bus. And if we take no action, I think the analogy of crashing in to a canyon is appropriately bad. The only difference is that falling off a cliff happens in an instant, and no harm is done if you stop at the last minute, whereas with climate change the problem is slowly getting worse day by day. So yeah, it is not a perfect analogy, but I don't think we are meant to take the cliff as a direct analogy to climate change occurring all at once or not at all. Doctorow certainly knows that is not physically correct.

Now if you look at human activity on long timescales, the decisions we make this century can drop us off a cliff in to disaster, or change our trajectory to just some bumps and bruises. And I think on this time scale the cliff analogy is more literal. You just can't think on the year by year timescales we normally think.

Re: The Swerve

#82

Post by csdvrx »

jacquesm wrote: post #74
csdvrx wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those places would have come out better if we all did this. Evidence required. Alternative claim: "Those places would have come out worse if we all did this" - neither of which can be proved.

You can think for yourself. But to spell it out for you: if all countries had simultaneously shut down travel for a couple of months then we could have all been at the level of New Zealand or Japan. Neither of which crashed their economies. Once vaccines were available we would have been able to open up travel again and we'd have been better off collectively. Even those places where they did shut down, because after…

> if all countries had simultaneously (...) Once vaccines were available (...) that would have happened (...)

You are piling up suppositions upon suppositions to come up with a wild claim. It doesn't work that way.

In case you doubt it, here's my equally plausible counter claim: if all the countries had simultaneously shut down, vaccine research would have taken the back burner, wouldn't have had sufficient funding, and mRNA vaccines would have never become mainstream. With the fake reassurance that it was a dud crisis, opening up to travel again would have caused a much worse human toll.

It's equally impossible to prove, but it's just as plausible, as it's extremely close to what happened in Australia - a country that was heralded as an example to follow!

> So you can reason it out, the fact that we can't re-run the experiment is a pity.

Indeed, but it's not a reason to throw logic out of the window. We just can't say what would have happened if everything had been wildly different.

We can just try to learn and improve for the next time on small details: most of the big countries managed to get a vaccine with their local industry, but some didn't. In some countries, the existing regulations initially prevented the rapid diffusion of tests, etc.

It's less ambitious, but more workable.

Re: The Swerve

#83

Post by ben_w »

drewcoo wrote: post #77
jacquesm wrote: post #8

Something I read in another comment on HN: "Climate denialists have gone in one smooth move from 'we'll fix it' to 'it's too late to do anything about it anyway'". Which unfortunately rings very true. The really, really big problem is that people seem to think that they personally are going to be exempt from this, that it will happen to others, but not to them. Waking up from that will be pretty harsh. But if COVID d…

> The really, really big problem is that people seem to think that they personally are going to be exempt from this Is that a bigger problem than people who seem to think that they personally are saving the planet by their own actions? I honestly can't tell the difference between treating gun crimes with thoughts and prayers and stopping global warming by taking personal responsibility. Nether is effective. Both seem…

Interesting analogy.

I'd say that it's more akin to trying to solve gun crime by refusing to own a gun: the only reason it won't work is that it needs everyone to do that, and if merely 0.1% of the population defect (in the game theory sense), that leads to the bad outcome.

Re: The Swerve

#84

Post by drewcoo »

dash2 wrote: post #57

Respectfully suggest this is nonsense. No serious climate scientist thinks we are going to fall off a cliff. There will be huge costs, yes. Civilization won't end, no. What people fail to grasp is that costs can be absolutely enormous but look like a blip compared to the effect of GDP growth in the long run. World War II is an example. The millions of deaths barely show up on a graph of world population. The huge los…

> No serious climate scientist thinks we are going to fall off a cliff.

It's not a literal cliff. Doctorow was using a metaphor. And they're never exact fits, they are loosely analogous.

He probably chose a bus in an attempt to make the trolley problem more current and approachable.

Re: The Swerve

#85

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #81
dash2 wrote: post #57

Respectfully suggest this is nonsense. No serious climate scientist thinks we are going to fall off a cliff. There will be huge costs, yes. Civilization won't end, no. What people fail to grasp is that costs can be absolutely enormous but look like a blip compared to the effect of GDP growth in the long run. World War II is an example. The millions of deaths barely show up on a graph of world population. The huge los…

I don't think the cliff in the article is referring to the phenomenon of a climate cliff. I think that is taking it too literally. I DO think climate change will be a disaster for humanity if we do nothing. It's not a sudden event by any means. The disaster will take decades of inaction and acceleration before we realize we are in it. But the analogy, which is that we are headed for a disaster and at this point we mu…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Swerve

#86

Post by SilverBirch »

jacquesm wrote: post #8

Something I read in another comment on HN: "Climate denialists have gone in one smooth move from 'we'll fix it' to 'it's too late to do anything about it anyway'". Which unfortunately rings very true. The really, really big problem is that people seem to think that they personally are going to be exempt from this, that it will happen to others, but not to them. Waking up from that will be pretty harsh. But if COVID d…

I actually think the people who think they'll be exempt are basically right. It's not like a tornado is going to pick your house up (unless, unfortunately that is exactly what happens).

Sure, there are going to be hotter hot spells, and more extreme cold spells, but that's not seriously something that a New Yorker can't deal with.

What is going to happen is poor people, foreign people, are going to starve to death and drown trying to get to safety, and the problem won't be climate challenge, it'll be illegal immigrants.

It's not going to happen first to middle-america. It's going to happen to Mexico, North Africa, the Middle East. And we're not going to say "hey, this is a universal issue created by emissions that our countries benefitted from". It's going to be talk about economic migrants, or how we can't afford to help them because we have problems at home. Bold prediction: Shipping them to Rwanda isn't going to be sustainable.

Re: The Swerve

#87

Post by kkjjkgjjgg »

the_af wrote: post #61
dash2 wrote: post #57

Respectfully suggest this is nonsense. No serious climate scientist thinks we are going to fall off a cliff. There will be huge costs, yes. Civilization won't end, no. What people fail to grasp is that costs can be absolutely enormous but look like a blip compared to the effect of GDP growth in the long run. World War II is an example. The millions of deaths barely show up on a graph of world population. The huge los…

> No serious climate scientist thinks we are going to fall off a cliff. There will be huge costs, yes. Civilization won't end, no. I've read more than a couple of articles, linked to here on HN, of climate scientists claiming that this is indeed a civilization-ending cliff. It's been mentioned like this in other media, for example in Cosmos 2. Yes, that's divulgation, but nonetheless, it means the scientists consulte…

No post body was provided.

Re: The Swerve

#88

Post by ptero »

danhak wrote: post #16
jacquesm wrote: post #8

Something I read in another comment on HN: "Climate denialists have gone in one smooth move from 'we'll fix it' to 'it's too late to do anything about it anyway'". Which unfortunately rings very true. The really, really big problem is that people seem to think that they personally are going to be exempt from this, that it will happen to others, but not to them. Waking up from that will be pretty harsh. But if COVID d…

Here in the U.S., at least, what has widely been maligned as "COVID denialism" was actually a deeper and more nuanced conversation about whether sudden, sweeping changes to society would prevent more harm than they cause. And now looking at outcomes across different states (e.g. Florida vs. California)--and considering ALL outcomes (public health, homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, mental health, truancy, g…

This. I cannot upvote this enough. Many people advocating for drastic measures (which may be necessary) are in a war. Casualties to be expected, those who are not on our side are enemies to be dealt with as the war times require (this is also the theme of the original article: let's grab the wheel and swerve, and if the bus rolls, well, too bad).

That is a possible approach, but once you start on that path there is no more negotiation. Only the force, us vs them. Then most folks on the sidelines who are somewhat supportive but not thrilled about swerving of the bus they ride in become active adversaries. I would not underestimate that factor. My 2c.

Re: The Swerve

#89

Post by jacquesm »

SilverBirch wrote: post #86
jacquesm wrote: post #8

Something I read in another comment on HN: "Climate denialists have gone in one smooth move from 'we'll fix it' to 'it's too late to do anything about it anyway'". Which unfortunately rings very true. The really, really big problem is that people seem to think that they personally are going to be exempt from this, that it will happen to others, but not to them. Waking up from that will be pretty harsh. But if COVID d…

I actually think the people who think they'll be exempt are basically right. It's not like a tornado is going to pick your house up (unless, unfortunately that is exactly what happens). Sure, there are going to be hotter hot spells, and more extreme cold spells, but that's not seriously something that a New Yorker can't deal with. What is going to happen is poor people, foreign people, are going to starve to death an…

This is probably correct. But we are the cause, those 'poor people' predominantly are at the back of the bus and we are condemning them to that fate.

Re: The Swerve

#90

Post by killjoywashere »

jacquesm wrote: post #28
danhak wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't seem to be engaging with the main point here: there were places that DID take COVID seriously--that shut down overnight, paid the price of mass unemployment, homelessness and growing tent cities, increasing substance abuse / overdose, loss of education that will never be recovered and countless other second-order effects. And those places did not emerge with a significantly better COVID outcome. Without an…

Those places would have come out better if we all did this. And that's the whole problem: if you don't tackle problems of this magnitude globally then you might as well not bother because a couple of dissidents on a large enough scale will ruin it for everybody else. In this case the dissidents even use this argument to show that the better choices didn't work... which when you think about it is really despicable.

> Those places would have come out better

I assume you mean the blue states? They did come out better, on average:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...

Post reply on HN