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

Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 179 posts

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#121

Post by starbugs »

hospitalJail wrote: post #103
starbugs wrote: post #7

How about not calling something a crisis if it isn't? A crisis is usually short-lived, not a permanent state.

I got one better. Use actual math to decide how bad it is. COVID 1% death rates among the elderly, sick, and obese? Not a crisis, that is essentially a bad flu year prior to 2020. (And 2018 and 2019 had a relatively low excess winter mortality, keeping the people on the brink of death, alive). There is a particular issue the news loves to report on in America, its basically a rounding error, but when children are inv…

> Climate crisis that could kill 100% of humans

This wording is just a bait for clicks and taps and does nothing to improve anything. That's why people get tired and call it the new normal.

Let them get emotional. It's part of the process of finding real solutions. Real solutions must work in the real world, globally in this case. It's not an easy problem to fix.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#122

Post by no_wizard »

ceejayoz wrote: post #86
swader999 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1-3mm a year is totally fine. Triple it even, it's not going to wipe out humanity or be the root cause of anything really bad. If it really gets warm, you'll see a lot more snow deposited in the higher latitudes, less rise. Obama's, Clinton's, Al Gore all have fabulous ocean front mansions. Here's some sauces: https://www.clo.nl/en/indicators/en022909-sea-level-dutch-co... https://research.csiro.au/slrwavescoast/sea-…

> Obama's, Clinton's, Al Gore all have fabulous ocean front mansions. I see people make this argument sometimes, but all it probably indicates is "mega-rich people can absorb a monetary loss", not "they don't believe it exists".

It also speaks to the fact that "rational agents" don't fully exist in making economic decisions. These are purchases that are largely driven by emotion not logical, I imagine

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#123

Post by holbrad »

runarberg wrote: post #118
SoftTalker wrote: post #116

Phrases like "the new normal" are clues that what you are reading is propaganda. The author has an agenda, and is not just relaying information. If you find yourself using such phrases, stop. It's cliche, and weakens the message. Stick to facts, or if you are writing persuasively, make a proper argument instead of falling back on stock phrases.

What do you suggest instead? My favorite phrase that I think captures the urgency and the desperate nature of the situation is “This is only gonna get worse, and we are all going to die” .

We shouldn't be spewing bullshit like this...

It's going to get worse, but trying to spin climate change as some apocalyptic event where we all die is just silly.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#124

Post by sfeaster »

This is an "old man yells at clouds moment." Eventually you either give up on expecting the media to be a purveyor of good or, at a minimum, frame an argument such that laymen have a thoughtful view on an issue OR be perpetually frustrated - yelling at clouds, so to speak. I realized I had to choose the former for my own mental health. The incentives of 24 news cycle media in no way align with a healthy society. Best to accept that truth and move on.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#125

Post by techdmn »

derefr wrote: post #21
exitb wrote: post #9

While I support the efforts to prevent and reverse the environmental damage we're causing, personally I don't believe they'll really succeed. It seems that human society is fundamentally incapable of acting in a coordinated way against a global, long term threat. So at a certain point convincing people to take the bus instead of a car, specifically because that will save the planet, starts to seem like a lie. It's no…

Why would "convincing people to take the bus instead of a car" require coordinated action? Just stop letting them buy gas. (Where by "them" I mean individual passenger-vehicle drivers. Continue to allow commercial vehicles to buy gas, but require that they show their commercial-vehicle license at the register.) A country could do it; or it could be done city by city with municipal bylaws to act only upon the worst po…

Slightly more plausible alternative: cessation of fossil fuel subsidies.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#126

Post by arsome »

Izkata wrote: post #100
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stop letting them buy gas? That would take either: - That companies (plural) stop selling gas. That's coordinated action, because you need all the oil companies (or all the gas stations) to agree. - That the government decides it. But in a democracy, that takes coordinated action too. The president does not have the constitutional authority to decree "no more sales of gasoline for passenger vehicles".

> That the government decides it. But in a democracy, that takes coordinated action too. The president does not have the constitutional authority to decree "no more sales of gasoline for passenger vehicles". California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington are going for it: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/states-banning-new-gas-po...

That's very different from "stop letting them buy gas" - It doesn't punish people for continuing their current standard of living nor forcibly reduce it and it doesn't immediately destroy the value of gasoline passenger vehicles, in fact it may increase them unless charging infrastructure catches up in those places.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#127

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

sfeaster wrote: post #124

This is an "old man yells at clouds moment." Eventually you either give up on expecting the media to be a purveyor of good or, at a minimum, frame an argument such that laymen have a thoughtful view on an issue OR be perpetually frustrated - yelling at clouds, so to speak. I realized I had to choose the former for my own mental health. The incentives of 24 news cycle media in no way align with a healthy society. Best…

And how do you move on?

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#128

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

holbrad wrote: post #123
runarberg wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you suggest instead? My favorite phrase that I think captures the urgency and the desperate nature of the situation is “This is only gonna get worse, and we are all going to die” .

We shouldn't be spewing bullshit like this... It's going to get worse, but trying to spin climate change as some apocalyptic event where we all die is just silly.

> we all die is just silly.

Not all then, just hundreds of millions of person. Phew!

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#129

Post by holbrad »

exitb wrote: post #19
swader999 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We dealt with the ozone hole fairly well. There hasn't been total nuclear war. The Netherlands is ten feet under sea level and does fine. Polar bears and all other bears are absolutely thriving.

Neither of these things required any change from regular people. In fact, today many people say that ozone hole just disappeared, because the changes needed were so transparent, no one even noticed. Is there a way people can continue their normal lives, but still eliminate the green house gasses emissions?

This take annoys some people but...

That's basically spot on, trying to convince people that they have to drastically lower or stagnant their standard of living is not going to be a successful strategy.

Electric cars only started to gain adoption once they are good enough. Exactly the same with solar panel prices.

We just need more technological breakthroughs it's the only realistic strategy.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#130

Post by delusional »

PheonixPharts wrote: post #87

While I agree with the title, I think the author misses the real reason not to refer to the "New Normal". David Wallace-Wells sums it up pretty well: > It is tempting to look at these strings of disasters and think, Climate change is here ... this is how California governor Jerry Brown first described the state of things in the midst of the state's wildfire disaster: "a new normal" > The truth is actually much scarie…

That's an amazing perspective I had never once considered. "The new normal" isn't the current state of things, instead "the new normal" is that we're on a slope. Instead of outliers that then regressions to some mean, it will continue to get worse. We'll have the hottest summer ever multiple years in a row.

That's scary.

Edit: If anybody want's to read the entire text that OP refers to: https://www.livemint.com/news/world/climate-change-crisis-cl...

Post reply on HN