Live data from Hacker News

We are not sustainable

frame.work

101–110 of 138 posts

Re: We are not sustainable

#101
When I saw the title I panicked because I have a laptop from them. Oh no they close down!

I was relieved that it was only about being them not sustainable for the Earth. How crazy is that? I am relieved that my laptop continues to be supported but for that we all might die later? Just because we all have our own selfish choices?

Re: We are not sustainable

#102
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And what exactly is the solution there? For most Americans a car is literally their ONLY option for transport. Hmm without saying that Americans need to do without a car entirely (because the country screwed up in that sense), I am pretty sure that in many situations, it is possible to not use a car. My experience is that Americans tend to not even consider taking a bike for a short ride. I have been in multiple pl…

I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Even unpowered bikes are disappearing from regular use due to rampant theft. It’s sad.

> I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal.

Yes, this is a big factor. Where I live (around silicon valley area) I can easily bike to nearly everything I need. But! Secure bike parking is rarely available. So my bike is guaranteed to be stolen. So the result is I either walk (if within ~10 minute walk) or drive. I'm a cyclist so I'd love to bike everywhere but without secure bike parking, can't happen.

Re: We are not sustainable

#103
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody wants to sacrifice anything, and yet that's exactly what is needed from humanity. Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat. I will add however that oil companies wouldn't stop processing so much oil right away, they will do what desperate powers do which is cling to remaining power as tightly as they can. This isn't…

> Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat. If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives. Cardboard straws suck ass . Without exception, every single cardboard straw I've ever used was soggy and tasted... well, like cardboard. They simply are not viable replacements. Fake…

I actually had a great (for cardboard) straw from jacksons in portland this weekend. I grabbed 3 of them thinking they'd melt. It did 2 full ~42oz diet dews over 4 hours before it started melting. the 2nd one lasted longer (I re-used the cup for drinks that night) holding up to 4 32 oz coke zeros and vodka. I was amazed.

Re: We are not sustainable

#104
post #94
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decarbonize electricity and electrify everything possible, which we must do, will solve the problem with tech. There is nothing extra that needs to be done. Except that you don't have a miracle low-emission energy source. So whatever you "waste" in the tech industry, you don't use in, say, electric trucks. Also the tech industry emissions are growing pretty fast. For what? Mostly for people to swipe TikTok 4h per d…

> Except that you don't have a miracle low-emission energy source. Sure you do. Solar and wind with battery storage, and fission to fill in the rest. Nuclear being politically unfeasible doesn't change the reality that it's pretty damn clean. Waste disposal/storage is a solved problem except for -- of course, again -- the politics. Yes, you can argue that "the politics" is important, and that makes it not "solved", a…

I kindly disagree. Solar and wind are marginal, and they have developed a lot thanks to fossil fuels. For society to not collapse, we would need them to scale in a world without fossil fuels. That is very far from being remotely proven. Then you can't control solar and wind (if there is no sun and no wind, you're screwed), so you need something else. If you have that something else, then probably you don't need that much solar/wind. Don't get me wrong: some solar and some wind is probably appropriate in many situations, but that is far from remotely replacing fossil fuels.

Fission is nice, but it takes a lot of time to build new plants (we as a society will be screwed pretty soon, so we don't have a ton of time before deciding to build new ones), but still they won't replace fossil fuels entirely.

Which means that we are going towards a future with less energy. If we screw up (and keep not doing anything like now), we're essentially dead. If we do it really well, we will have some energy, but not as much as today.

Therefore we need to prepare our society to deal with less energy. That has nothing to do with politics, it's just physics. Politics will make the difference between society completely collapsing and society dealing with less energy.

Re: We are not sustainable

#105
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Even unpowered bikes are disappearing from regular use due to rampant theft. It’s sad.

> I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Yes, this is a big factor. Where I live (around silicon valley area) I can easily bike to nearly everything I need. But! Secure bike parking is rarely available. So my bike is guaranteed to be stolen. So the result is I either walk (if within ~10 minute walk) or drive. I'm a cyclist so I'd love to bike everywhere…

I find it a bit sad that (secure) bike parking is missing in a country where it honestly feels like half of the constructed territory is parking lots.

Not a criticism, but the area covered by parking lots in the US shocks me every time I visit.

Instead of making half-working heavy autonomous electric cars, couldn't Silicon Valley somehow find a low-tech way to solve the secure bike parking issue? They are good at claiming that they want a better world, and this should not be rocket science.

Re: We are not sustainable

#106
post #83
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives. If people are not ideologically onboard with "we don't want society to collapse" while wanting to keep using plastic straws... I think they need information more than viable alternatives.

Part of the issue with your argument is that most policymakers will be dead by the time society collapses, so they don't care as much. Sure, there's often rhetoric around "saving the world for my children and their children", but in the end most people are selfish and are fine with making things the problems of future generations. "Information" doesn't sway people. Feelings do. If they feel like they're eating/using/…

> Part of the issue with your argument is that most policymakers will be dead by the time society collapses

Hmm... given how it is going (climate seems to be changing faster than the models predicted), it's getting more and more clear that global instability, wars and famine will be here in the next few decades (if you doubt the "famine" issue: take any big US city, and ask yourself what happens if trucks can't get into the city and bring food for a few days). Unless most policymakers are 60 or so, they have a good chance to live long enough to see that. Most definitely their children.

> "Information" doesn't sway people. Feelings do.

When you realize how bad the biodiversity problem is, how bad climate change is, and how bad the energy problem (which is actually the root cause of the other two) is, I think the only reasonable feeling you can get is fear. Maybe faith in technology helps (many people hide behind "they will find a solution"), so maybe one needs to realize that the tech industry is a big money-making joke.

But once you get that information, you should get the fear. And fear should make you accept to start thinking about actions to mitigate the consequences of... well of our way of life.

Re: We are not sustainable

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't even change the small things, as we see through outrage over plastic straws still, nevermind trying to get people to eat less meat. If you want people who aren't ideologically on board to sacrifice, you need viable alternatives. Cardboard straws suck ass . Without exception, every single cardboard straw I've ever used was soggy and tasted... well, like cardboard. They simply are not viable replacements. Fake…

I actually had a great (for cardboard) straw from jacksons in portland this weekend. I grabbed 3 of them thinking they'd melt. It did 2 full ~42oz diet dews over 4 hours before it started melting. the 2nd one lasted longer (I re-used the cup for drinks that night) holding up to 4 32 oz coke zeros and vodka. I was amazed.

They’ve started coating them with PFOAs now. Which works well, but…yea.

Re: We are not sustainable

#108
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only two options are not "you, individual, drive less" and "go to wall-street^W^W the office of shell gas and tell them to cut it out." A lot of americans are forced into car dependency, but at the very same time, it is very easy to drive in downtowns in the US even where it is difficult to own a car. You need to do both, both disincentivize driving on the personal level and regulate companies and change land-use…

The problem with making driving more expensive (which is what happens when you try to legally disincentivize it) is that it becomes a regressive tax: lower-income folks get hurt very badly by it. The rich of course don't love paying extra for something (and, being the ones usually in power, will fight against it), but can usually bear the cost without much pain.

It's worth remembering that the poorest, those that can't afford a car or can only afford 1 car for the family, are reliant on public transit. But yes, making driving expensive often ends up hurting the lower-middle class the most because they usually live in the least walkable areas due to historical redlining and generally commute the furthest. The fact that this is a regressive tax is a big talking point for keeping driving cheap.

The problem is, the alternative is to throw money at a public transit system and nobody wants to do that either. You can make the taxes highly progressive, but even then, I doubt anyone would agree. In general the only thing to do is what activist groups are doing already; fight the local institutions (DOTs, planning departments, city council, etc.) to make the changes necessary to make getting around without a car viable, fast, comfortable, and cheap.

Re: We are not sustainable

#109
post #105
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think bikes and scooters would be more popular where I am (Seattle) if they weren’t so easy to steal. Yes, this is a big factor. Where I live (around silicon valley area) I can easily bike to nearly everything I need. But! Secure bike parking is rarely available. So my bike is guaranteed to be stolen. So the result is I either walk (if within ~10 minute walk) or drive. I'm a cyclist so I'd love to bike everywhere…

I find it a bit sad that (secure) bike parking is missing in a country where it honestly feels like half of the constructed territory is parking lots. Not a criticism, but the area covered by parking lots in the US shocks me every time I visit. Instead of making half-working heavy autonomous electric cars, couldn't Silicon Valley somehow find a low-tech way to solve the secure bike parking issue? They are good at cla…

I mean of course it could. Much like we have parking minimums, we could just mandate bike locker minimums. There's already a robust bike locker program in the area called Bikelink so it would just be about expanding the program. The problem is nobody has lobbied the government to do this yet and updating code like this is hard because maintaining the status quo is easy. Developers will also undoubtedly fight it because it raises costs.

Re: We are not sustainable

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know anti-car attitudes annoy some people, but we really should drive this home(pun not intended but taken advantage of). People keep using "a tank of gas" as a fungible, graspable unit of carbon emissions while not realising reducing that very thing often has an out-sized impact on carbon emission, sometimes more than other things like reusing clothes, internet usage of this or that services or saas, and so on. Tr…

The problem is the genuine vitriol the anti-car topic can bring out in people. The US can stand a lot of changes in public travel, i.e. it’s bullshit that I cannot take the train from one state capital to another, barring Hawaii and possibly Alaska. It’s also bullshit, however, when urbanists/“fuck car” people enter the conversation and demand we need to destroy rural and suburban living entirely. Even labeling it as…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN