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

The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#51

Post by t43562 »

_heimdall wrote: post #24
t43562 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could require people to die. Also you cannot make people who are poor not want to better their lives even if it costs in the long term. How would you force them? They are going to try one way or another and all we can do is find a better way.

Any solution could lead to some deaths, as could doing nothing. There's plenty of power use that isn't necessary and could be cut with little or no meaningful impact. More so for the poor, they likely aren't part of the wasted power consumption that would even be the low hanging fruit. In the US particularly, we seem to strive to build large single family homes. Those are a massive waste of resources, from the materi…

Poorer countries (I am from one) will want higher living standards and there are a lot of people in that condition. I think they will condone sea mining to reach them.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#52

Post by RandomLensman »

kiba wrote: post #46
RandomLensman wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.

It could just easily shows that people don't have choice. After all, state and local authorities decreed how much parking there should be and how zoning works. Meanwhile, the feds provided funding for an interstate system in which highways destroyed whole neighborhoods in the process. Our choices are shaped by the available options people have, sometime very little choices at all. Given that some countries are richer…

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#53

Post by kiba »

RandomLensman wrote: post #52
kiba wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could just easily shows that people don't have choice. After all, state and local authorities decreed how much parking there should be and how zoning works. Meanwhile, the feds provided funding for an interstate system in which highways destroyed whole neighborhoods in the process. Our choices are shaped by the available options people have, sometime very little choices at all. Given that some countries are richer…

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Buying a large house is a 'choice' in the sense that much of middle housing is illegal and that political structures aren't designed to maximize the efficient use of land.

There's a reason why Georgism is in vogue these days.

buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Ah, yes. Powered by a system that is designed to exploit brains for profit. It's like eating junk food is a choice. Or not exercising is a 'choice'.

They are useless excuses that justify the status quo rather than empowering us to do something about it.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#54

Post by _heimdall »

RandomLensman wrote: post #42
_heimdall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any solution could lead to some deaths, as could doing nothing. There's plenty of power use that isn't necessary and could be cut with little or no meaningful impact. More so for the poor, they likely aren't part of the wasted power consumption that would even be the low hanging fruit. In the US particularly, we seem to strive to build large single family homes. Those are a massive waste of resources, from the materi…

The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.

Oh I'm specifically not saying a central authority should dictate what we can and can't have, I'd be very against that.

My point is only that we as individuals could give up quite a few things that would collectively make a good dent in lowering energy use without ruining society, well-being, etc.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#55

Post by _heimdall »

kiba wrote: post #53
RandomLensman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice. Buying a large house is a 'choice' in the sense that much of middle housing is illegal and that political structures aren't designed to maximize the efficient use of land. There's a reason why Georgism is in vogue these days. buying lots of clothes is a choice. Ah, yes. Powe…

Wait, are you arguing that eating junk food and not exercising aren't really choices?

I hope I'm just misreading sarcasm there, but they are very much choices and that itself should be empowering because people can just as easily make a different choice.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#56

Post by _heimdall »

pi-e-sigma wrote: post #43
kiba wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can also be true that improving energy efficiency will be good, and forgoing harmful energetic activity is also good, such as reducing the number of cars on the road.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for.

I don't think its quite that simple, I wouldn't assume that car use is always a net positive for standard of living and more cars are always better. Reducing cars would likely reduce car fatalities and pollution, for example.

Vehicles are also expensive and can be stressful to maintain and pay for. Choosing to remove a cat from your life and finding a way to make that work can be a net positive long term. Obviously that wouldn't work for everyone, but if it works for some then we have to accept that more cars don't always equal higher standard of living.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#57

Post by RandomLensman »

kiba wrote: post #53
RandomLensman wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice. Buying a large house is a 'choice' in the sense that much of middle housing is illegal and that political structures aren't designed to maximize the efficient use of land. There's a reason why Georgism is in vogue these days. buying lots of clothes is a choice. Ah, yes. Powe…

Middle housing is illegal? Where is that or rather what is that then?

If you want to believe that humans are just misled in a way that is fine, but you might find that some of your ideas about the status quo turn out to be wrong or at least that the status quo has few thousand years in it you need to overcome.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#58

Post by collegeburner »

kiba wrote: post #41
collegeburner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a barrel of oil is equivalent to around twenty-five thousand man hours of work. sacrificing that would result in a colossal hit to quality of life. and ironically, the additional people needed to mitigate that might actually result in more ecological impact, to say nothing of broadening a global underclass of widget producers we can and should use our limited hydrocarbons to bootstrap our way to higher-potential ener…

We can use less cars and use more trains. Energy efficiency is also an addition in the crease of available energy source, since said energy sources can be deployed to more productive, less harmful processes. Walking is also good, and it would probably do us good to personally increase humans' basal metabolism.

trains are exclusively fixed point-to-point. many cities are not constructed for walking and/or are 110 in the summer. respectfully, screw walking.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#59

Post by kiba »

_heimdall wrote: post #55
kiba wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice. Buying a large house is a 'choice' in the sense that much of middle housing is illegal and that political structures aren't designed to maximize the efficient use of land. There's a reason why Georgism is in vogue these days. buying lots of clothes is a choice. Ah, yes. Powe…

Wait, are you arguing that eating junk food and not exercising aren't really choices? I hope I'm just misreading sarcasm there, but they are very much choices and that itself should be empowering because people can just as easily make a different choice.

I hope I'm just misreading sarcasm there, but they are very much choices and that itself should be empowering because people can just as easily make a different choice.

If choice is so easy, anyone can pick up a textbook about mathematics, barring deficiency in cognitive capacity, become knowledgeable about mathematics. That doesn't happen not because people are stupid, but because the task is genuinely hard.

If choice is so easy, you would be able to able to choose to not to eat for three days and achieve that. For some people, it is extremely difficult. For others, that is easy. I have experienced both situations.

Real freedom, then, is to understand that your own mind has their own cause and effect and how to manipulate that to achieve 'freedom of choice', and the corresponding training to be able to do so.

To have whole societies exercising, then, is to understand the causal factors involved and the knobs needed to achieve that, and the organizational capacity to do so.

That is why to say that you 'have a choice' to not exercise or exercise is a defeatist attitude and to consign whole group of people to early death. What people need is not 'choices' but solutions to achieve those choices.

I myself continue to struggle. I have lost weight and then regained. There are time in which I can exercise for hours. There are times in which I achieved physical fitness that I at time I never thought I could. I will keep trying, but clearly I do not yet have mastery of my own mind.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#60

Post by kiba »

RandomLensman wrote: post #57
kiba wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice. Buying a large house is a 'choice' in the sense that much of middle housing is illegal and that political structures aren't designed to maximize the efficient use of land. There's a reason why Georgism is in vogue these days. buying lots of clothes is a choice. Ah, yes. Powe…

Middle housing is illegal? Where is that or rather what is that then? If you want to believe that humans are just misled in a way that is fine, but you might find that some of your ideas about the status quo turn out to be wrong or at least that the status quo has few thousand years in it you need to overcome.

Middle housing is illegal? Where is that or rather what is that then?

Middle housing is a type of housing density that sits somewhere between high rises and single family housing. Vox media has a good article on it.[1]

but you might find that some of your ideas about the status quo turn out to be wrong or at least that the status quo has few thousand years in it you need to overcome.

Modern status quo is vastly different to how urban planning was done in the past. Maybe they have a good reason, or maybe not, or maybe they were a good idea for a time but became obsolete.

1. https://www.vox.com/videos/2021/8/17/22628750/how-the-us-mad...

Post reply on HN