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

I Choose Optimism

secularhumanism.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 222 posts

Re: I Choose Optimism

#31

Post by xmprt »

neilwilson wrote: post #10
Comevius wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things did get better globally, even if marginally for most, but at what price. If I take out a loan to live it up for a year, but then have no way of paying it back, because I haven't invested the money into anything substantial did things really got better for me? With the Industrial Revolution, and later the Green Revolution we began accumulating a debt. All the gains we made were borrowed against the future. This…

"If I take out a loan to live it up for a year, but then have no way of paying it back, because I haven't invested the money into anything substantial did things really got better for me?" Yes. Because those you spent it with must have, or you wouldn't have been able to buy anything with it. Therefore you caused things to happen that wouldn't otherwise have happened. Debt is one of human's greatest inventions. It's w…

I'm not sure I follow your argument. I agree that debt is important for society to function however taking on debt that you don't invest into yourself is literally ruinous and not in a hypothetical way - tons of people's lives have been destroyed by getting into too much debt that they weren't able to pay back.

> Yes. Because those you spent it with must have, or you wouldn't have been able to buy anything with it

This just means that the people that you paid have better lives but you haven't explained how things are better are better for yourself unless you have some way of paying that debt back.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#32

Post by tjmc »

salt-thrower wrote: post #16
DoreenMichele wrote: post #9

American homes in 1950 averaged 983 square feet; by 2014, the size had nearly tripled to 2,657 square feet. Today, 91 percent of our homes are air-conditioned. This is not actually a good thing. This is actually a problem.

Exactly. The author is living in a middle/upper class suburbian bubble. Bigger and bigger houses that consume more and more resources is a problem, not a sign of progress. It is a glaring sign of the consumerism and resource depletion that is fueling the crisis we're in. There is no amount of renewable energy that will make "average homes are 2,657 square feet and have air conditioning" a sustainable way of living.

My house is about that size with air conditioning and we consume less than half the solar energy we produce with a 6.6kW system on the roof - a pretty typical size for Australia. I'm lucky to live in one of the sunnier places in the world, but I don't agree that it's not possible.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#33

Post by ARandomerDude »

> For most of history, people thought: “The world is bad and, usually, it’s getting worse.” In other words, no longer did humans see themselves as mere pawns for the gods.

What? Citation needed.

A negative view of individual sin is certainly part of the Christian worldview, but gods are not, nor is an overall negative outlook. The whole point is that God loves his people enough to save them, the Church will expand, and Christ will return in glory.

If the author is describing paganism ("pawns for the gods") I'm curious to know which of those had an overall negative view with such widespread influence that those religions could describe people generally. Certainly the Greeks and the Romans thought very highly of themselves and believed that the gods were with them, hence they flourished.

This seems more like an atheist talking point than anything grounded in history.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#34

Post by DocTomoe »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #23
narcraft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning? I sometimes get the impression that sustainability advocates/environmentalists are more anti-technolgy or anti-human than they are pro-nature and saying things like "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoy…

Air conditioning wasn't really a need in most places historically. Vernacular architecture relied heavily on passive solar design as the default. This uses less energy and also provides superior human comfort.

Coming from Europe, where air conditioning is not really a thing (outside of places of business), yes, you are probably right. It is not a need. But neither is clothing in most parts of the world, or houses larger than a bed, or food that's not oatmeal and the random scavenged fruit. Creature comforts matter.

I've been to Morocco lately, with dry 45-48 degrees celsius outside. I've experienced that "vernacular architecture". Every single one of those buildings I have been in (including stalls in the soukh, which is ridiculous because they are essentially missing a wall towards the street) had some form of air conditioning retrofitted.

Of course, the tendency of Americans to set their air conditioning to below 20 degrees is ridiculous.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#35

Post by scbrg »

atemerev wrote: post #27
salt-thrower wrote: post #18

This article comes across as extremely tone-deaf, and the author seems unaware of the existential scale of the problems humanity is facing. The fact that the phrase "climate change" only appears once - at the beginning, as a throwaway line - really speaks volumes. If the only problems we face were war and rising Christian fascism, I would also be optimistic, because those things can and have been fought successfully…

Human civilization will survive mass extinctions and change of habitability of some places. Humans are resilient. And if they won’t, life itself is even more resilient.

This is a very, very annoying strawman. Nobody believes that life, or even humanity will be wiped off the face of the earth. It's the tremendous amount suffering it'll have to endure that we'd rather avoid.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#36

Post by cercatrova »

salt-thrower wrote: post #30
atemerev wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human civilization will survive mass extinctions and change of habitability of some places. Humans are resilient. And if they won’t, life itself is even more resilient.

> And if they won’t, life itself is even more resilient. You realize that's hardly reassuring, right? You're right though - life is resilient. Life has survived worse. But our fragile global civilization, propped up by fossil fuels at a core level, is not resilient in the worst case outcomes of climate change. And keep in mind: in order to avoid the worst case scenarios, massive economic and political change needs to…

Humans have still suffered far worse. At one point, around 70kya, there were only an estimated maximum of 10,000 humans, and it is from that population that sprung forth 8 billion today. I highly doubt with even all the damage climate change will cause that we will go back to such numbers.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#37

Post by DocTomoe »

eCa wrote: post #24
narcraft wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there hypothetically was a magical source of near infinite renewable energy that could be harnessed without negative side effects, would you be ok with 2600+ sqft homes and air conditioning? I sometimes get the impression that sustainability advocates/environmentalists are more anti-technolgy or anti-human than they are pro-nature and saying things like "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoy…

> "there is no amount of renewable energy that will make [enjoyable living standards] a sustainable way of living" doesn't make environmental reforms seem very palatable to me. Imagine that those environmentalists are correct. Doesn’t advocating for change, palatable or not, make them at their core more pro-human than most? They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive. > If it's substantially less th…

> They are, after all, trying to make the human species survive.

A perceived "good cause" does not make an argument - or an action - necessarily good. Remember that medieval witch hunts were doing the "humanitarian" thing when they set people aflame because they were trying to save the suspected witches' souls from eternal damnation.

> If that is the case, then there ain’t no cure that any elected politican can pursue.

... so have unelected politicians do the dirty work? Just like with every radicalism, radical environmentalism will eventually lead to a less-than-democratic system.

I sympathise with the environmental movement, even if I think that there's a lot of doom porn happening there and some people's energies would be better invested looking for workable solutions instead of protesting. But we need to watch them. radicalised, they are likely to become dangerous.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#38

Post by xupybd »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #33

> For most of history, people thought: “The world is bad and, usually, it’s getting worse.” In other words, no longer did humans see themselves as mere pawns for the gods. What? Citation needed. A negative view of individual sin is certainly part of the Christian worldview, but gods are not, nor is an overall negative outlook. The whole point is that God loves his people enough to save them, the Church will expand, a…

I agree however the problem is that you can probably find someone claiming to be Christian that lives as a "pawn for the gods". That kind of legalism slips into peoples lives. Especially the kind of people that are not fully convinced but go along for other reasons. Often these people become strong champions against Christianity, as it's a pretty horrible way to live. If you think that is the way Christianity is supposed to be it's no wonder you'd try to prevent others from living that way.

Her statement: "They could bring logic and the scientific method to bear and actually fix things that were bad, wrong, or deadly. That is our inheritance, and a priceless one at that. We were given tools, not answers. But those tools, when properly deployed, transform human lives."

Lines up with the Christian purpose for people: "God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

But we all misunderstand each other all the time. I'm sure I don't fully understand the authors beliefs. I'd love for her to meet some "Christian nationalists" to find out what they really want. I think we all have more common ground than most realize. It's a shame things have become so tribal.

Re: I Choose Optimism

#40

Post by M3L0NM4N »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #9

American homes in 1950 averaged 983 square feet; by 2014, the size had nearly tripled to 2,657 square feet. Today, 91 percent of our homes are air-conditioned. This is not actually a good thing. This is actually a problem.

I mean they objectively provide a better quality of life to people... Not to pick a side, but there's pros and cons to it.
Post reply on HN