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

Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 265 posts

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#191

Post by s1artibartfast »

chii wrote: post #94
skissane wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When we do things such as “screening for down syndrome” [1], we are already actively engaged in a eugenics project, but we don’t think of it as one because it’s the kind of intentional genetic control we like. Historically, many cases of "eugenics" involved a lack of informed consent, even blatant coercion. That screening is entirely voluntary–you have the right to say "no", and I know couples who have (due to mora…

Yes this! Eugenics is only when someone else decides it for you.

I think this is exactly the kind of revisionist history Faro's post was talking about. "that was eugenics, this is NUgenics"

Lack of informed consent was never central to eugenics

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#192

Post by [deleted] »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #130
c54 wrote: post #36

I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge? It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our…

This is another issue witha clear age divide. Younger generation is overwhelmingly aware of the problem, but our decisiojn makers have an average age of 70 or some such. Older voters hold more power too. Brexit was overwhelmingly voted for by older people. The west is in crisis because the young peiple are getting shafted at every step, from the housing market to the environment. I love my grandparents, but I would n…

[deleted]

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#193

Post by weatherlite »

fny wrote: post #187
weatherlite wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear energy is expensive, tricky to get right and constrained by Uranium. We have about 230 years at today's consumption rate left. Sounds like a lot but today's consumption isn't much...many countries barely use nuclear. So imagine what happens if we need to increase nuclear by 10x ...oops now we have 20 years worth of Uranium left. Also while not an expert on mining I do know that the best spots are mined first,…

It looks like you stopped reading. > Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time It also looks like you've forgotten about thorium, and geothermal, and solar... My point is that the article is tremendously lazy .

I'm all for nuclear just lets keep in mind it's non renewable, expensive and tricky to get right. As for thorium I'm no expert but I assume you mean nuclear fission which is not a new concept and totally speculative at the moment is it was in the last 50 years. I really really hope there's a breakthrough soon that can be scaled cheaply. Solar and wind are very good but are built and maintained with fossil fuels and can't produce enough heat for heavy industrial processes like construction materials etc. We should totally go for them but they are a partial solution for a problem that might be unsolvable if we keep growing are energy consumption. I can't see why people resist the notion we need to bring energy consumption down.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#194

Post by mchusma »

The paper has several key flaws: - it does not address recent dematerialization and improved efficiency per human in the first world. - it does not address "off planet" in any way. We can build the surface area of over a billion earths just by disassembling mercury and using it to build rotating space habitats. - it doesn't address the fact that human energy consumption is a tiny fraction of what is available in our own solar system. Less than 2 billionths of sunlight hits earth at all, and efficiency keeps going up. much less than 0.1% of the earth has solar panels, so with solar alone we can increase energy production more than a trillion times more than today. - it doesn't address the potential other energy sources like fusion, which have capacities far beyond fossil fuels.

All of this has the net effect of the paper sounding smart but its only applicable in a scenario where technological progress stops and we never truly leave the planet.

I actually think it's good for people to think of plan B options, but plan A should be to build tech, get off planet, and have a trillion+ hunans living in luxury.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#195

Post by franciscop »

darkerside wrote: post #179
franciscop wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the issue with the balance here is that no matter where you fall on the "climate scale belief" (except probably the most extreme of deniers), people consider anyone that thinks a better future than you is coming will be labelled a denier, while anyone who thinks a worse future than you think is coming is given a soft pass as just having stronger convictions. That unfortunately leaves the vast majority o…

There's a big overlap here with COVID thinking. At the end of the day, people are OK with other people dying. And really, how could we not be? It happens every day. Particularly when the hardest hit people will be in other (poorer) countries, it just feels less meaningful to those who will likely fare better.

Yes, unfortunately for as harsh as it sounds for anything at human-scale that inherently has some live-threatening risk, the ideal design is pretty much never 0-deaths. Anything I can think of: driving cars, sports, almost any job, etc. would need massive restrictions, to the point of those actions not making sense anymore, to reduce death risk to 0. So while sure, trying to reduce unnecessary risk, there's always a minimal amount of risk we are okay with.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#196

Post by franciscop »

whoooooo123 wrote: post #118
franciscop wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the issue with the balance here is that no matter where you fall on the "climate scale belief" (except probably the most extreme of deniers), people consider anyone that thinks a better future than you is coming will be labelled a denier, while anyone who thinks a worse future than you think is coming is given a soft pass as just having stronger convictions. That unfortunately leaves the vast majority o…

> Actual true deniers that say human have no effect in global climate, IMHO, are so few that they are not even worth mentioning. I'm not sure this is true, but even if it is, I think it's only become true recently. It's getting harder to deny climate change lately because it's more obvious every year that the climate is changing . It's noticeably hotter and drier in the UK every year than it used to be. Hell, I'm sta…

Yes, I believe it's a fairly recent change! I would think there were many more actual deniers 10-20 years ago, but today it seems we label people as deniers much easier (as you say "it can't be that bad" would be labelled as a denier today).

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#197

Post by [deleted] »

adrianN wrote: post #145
franciscop wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the issue with the balance here is that no matter where you fall on the "climate scale belief" (except probably the most extreme of deniers), people consider anyone that thinks a better future than you is coming will be labelled a denier, while anyone who thinks a worse future than you think is coming is given a soft pass as just having stronger convictions. That unfortunately leaves the vast majority o…

The problem is that _any_ action is criticized as sacrificing prosperity, even though it often just sacrifices the prosperity of a small number of people.

[deleted]

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#198

Post by Bakary »

Bloating wrote: post #42
Bakary wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't heading to extinction just on account of birthrates, it's the transition phase with a large number of elderly dependents and a small number of workers that is going to be the real problem.

2019: but the robots will take our jobs! 2022: we need more robots!

Any technology that enables us to do more things tends to be a good thing. But we are suspicious of it because we know it remains to be seen whether the tech will actually be used to improve our lives

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#199

Post by dane-pgp »

skissane wrote: post #76
fardo wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think we will ever turn back to eugenics? As the word is currently used, no, but mostly because it’s seemingly used to represent, in the public consciousness > intentional genetic control we dislike When we do things such as “screening for down syndrome” [1], we are already actively engaged in a eugenics project, but we don’t think of it as one because it’s the kind of intentional genetic control we like. I e…

> When we do things such as “screening for down syndrome” [1], we are already actively engaged in a eugenics project, but we don’t think of it as one because it’s the kind of intentional genetic control we like. Historically, many cases of "eugenics" involved a lack of informed consent, even blatant coercion. That screening is entirely voluntary–you have the right to say "no", and I know couples who have (due to mora…

> That screening is entirely voluntary–you have the right to say "no"

The child doesn't, though, and, if you'll excuse my frankness, I think the abortion affects his/her future the most out of all the parties involved.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#200

Post by seydor »

brutusborn wrote: post #184
seydor wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That says nothing about power or about academia itself. The whole supplement is a "list of superficial assertions we hold to be true even though we have no idea if they are", that are typical political anti-capitalist rhetoric

They are "working hypothesis" to be studied, and thus implicitly they are being considered skeptically. I agree they should consider power, I would imagine that would come under cultural aspects. As to Academia, they explicitly criticize Academic silos; the whole network is a way to address problems with reductionism. I'm not sure what makes you think they are anti-capitalist. I suspect you didn't read the whole thin…

> I'm not sure what makes you think they are anti-capitalist.

Their list contains these:

- Our current economic model emphasizes means (income, spending) over ends (wellbeing)

- The free market may not be the best way of meeting basic human needs, such as water, food, and air quality (empirically false)

- Relentless focus on short-term performance and growth, together with a discount rate that devalues the future, blinds decision-makers to long-term challenges (content-free rambling)

- Humanity will need to reevaluate its place in the natural world, shifting from consumerism to conservation, and accepting planetary boundaries

- It is essential that humanity reframe its decisionmaking processes to value ecosystem health, resilience, sustainability, human rights, and true quality of life above traditional economic indicator

> envision a 'world without power'?

Not possible , but a world with less concentration of power is possible

Post reply on HN