The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining • Hacker News Board

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#71

Post by kiba » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 6:45 PM UTC

_heimdall wrote: post #64

kiba wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 choi…

> 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. You're conflating choice with a much more complex situation that raises questions of how people learn, how skills relate to nature versus nurture, and personal interest and m…

You can't make difficult choices you want unless you understand and trained to manipulate your own mind.

A society can't become healthier, even if they are willing, unless they understood the steps they need to take to become healthier.

Choice are meaningless if you can't do them, which is why they are traps.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#72

Post by kiba » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 6:47 PM UTC

collegeburner wrote: post #63

kiba wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

trains are exclusively fixed point-to-point. many cities are not constructed for walking and/or are 110 in the summer. respectfully, screw walking. Changing society is hard isn't an excuse to continue the status quo, nor some edge case you envisioned is an excuse to not encourage walking, cycling, or public transit whenever possible.

no, i'm saying 1. transportation is only a certain amount of our infrastructure and the cars can be electrified, and 2. your paradigm assumes we hold the environment above people's quality of life. i do not.

That's only true if you hold the environment to be negatively correlated with quality of life.

It's not automatically true that having cars increase the quality of life.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#73

Post by jareklupinski » Sun, Jan 07, 2024, 11:46 PM UTC

adhesive_wombat wrote: post #3

Makes good cover for naval intelligence activities though. Just don't assume because you see a ship "mining manganese nodules" from the seabed that you should build your own ship with your own money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes#Glomar_Explorer_...

personally hoping to start a robotic deep sea exploration crew in my retirement years...

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#74

Post by _heimdall » Mon, Jan 08, 2024, 4:57 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #71

_heimdall wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. You're conflating choice with a much more complex situation that raises questions of how people learn, how skills relate to nature versus nurture, and personal interest and m…

You can't make difficult choices you want unless you understand and trained to manipulate your own mind. A society can't become healthier, even if they are willing, unless they understood the steps they need to take to become healthier. Choice are meaningless if you can't do them, which is why they are traps.

I'm not really sure how you even describe those as choices, or why you think people are destined to eat junk food.

There are absolutely situations where economics or geographic limitations leave some with little choice beyond junk food. Beyond that, eating junk food is a choice. The beauty of choice is that we are offered the freedom to make it. Maybe you never want to eat junk food, or only occasionally, or maybe you really enjoy it and prefer to live on a junk food diet. Its a choice, and one that can be made today and changed tomorrow.

Viewing things like exercise and diet as a non choice is insanely dis-empowering. I want to know that I can choose to change if its important to me, I don't want to feel powerless to genetics or the society in which I was born.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#75

Post by gottorf » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 1:28 AM UTC

kiba wrote: post #39

_heimdall wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument hinges on two assumptions, both that I'd argue are flawed. First, you're assuming that our current use of power is efficient and there isn't enough unnecessary or inefficient use of power to make a difference. Do you believe that there aren't changes we could make to reduce power use without noticeably reducing human well-being? Second, you're assuming that increased growth is always a good thing and de…

Walking would improve lifestyle of most humans on Earth.

Most humans on Earth walk all day, every day, even when they really don't want to, because there isn't an alternative. Almost all of that subset yearn to go to developed countries that don't require them to walk in the rain or sweltering heat, carrying heavy burdens.

Walking would improve the lifestyle of the ~1% of humans that live in developed countries and press keys for a living. Everybody else would like to sit in a car every now and then.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#76

Post by gottorf » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 1:37 AM UTC

_heimdall wrote: post #26

gottorf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There still one good choice, just use less power. All of civilization has basically been about allowing higher per capita energy usage. To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development. If our goal is human flourishing, then our focus should be on enabling yet higher levels of energy usage per person, preferably with as few side-effects as possible. Fossil fuels have been (and will con…

Your argument hinges on two assumptions, both that I'd argue are flawed. First, you're assuming that our current use of power is efficient and there isn't enough unnecessary or inefficient use of power to make a difference. Do you believe that there aren't changes we could make to reduce power use without noticeably reducing human well-being? Second, you're assuming that increased growth is always a good thing and de…

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: I'm advocating for the increased ability of humans to harness more energy per capita, not that increased actual consumption of energy per capita is always a good thing (though I'd say the latter is almost always true).

That conscious privation in the face of abundance is good for you in certain cases does not mean that as a matter of public policy, we should strive for privation instead of abundance.

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#77

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 4:16 AM UTC

_heimdall wrote: post #74

kiba wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make difficult choices you want unless you understand and trained to manipulate your own mind. A society can't become healthier, even if they are willing, unless they understood the steps they need to take to become healthier. Choice are meaningless if you can't do them, which is why they are traps.

I'm not really sure how you even describe those as choices, or why you think people are destined to eat junk food. There are absolutely situations where economics or geographic limitations leave some with little choice beyond junk food. Beyond that, eating junk food is a choice. The beauty of choice is that we are offered the freedom to make it. Maybe you never want to eat junk food, or only occasionally, or maybe yo…

[deleted]

Re: The Dubious Economics of Deep-Sea Mining

#78

Post by kiba » Tue, Jan 09, 2024, 4:22 AM UTC

_heimdall wrote: post #74

kiba wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make difficult choices you want unless you understand and trained to manipulate your own mind. A society can't become healthier, even if they are willing, unless they understood the steps they need to take to become healthier. Choice are meaningless if you can't do them, which is why they are traps.

I'm not really sure how you even describe those as choices, or why you think people are destined to eat junk food. There are absolutely situations where economics or geographic limitations leave some with little choice beyond junk food. Beyond that, eating junk food is a choice. The beauty of choice is that we are offered the freedom to make it. Maybe you never want to eat junk food, or only occasionally, or maybe yo…

Viewing things like exercise and diet as a non choice is insanely dis-empowering. I want to know that I can choose to change if its important to me, I don't want to feel powerless to genetics or the society in which I was born.

It's not that I think people are destined to eat junk food, it's that describing what you eat as a choice is shallow and useless.

A choice is only meaningful if you are able to implement it. Only with knowledge, training, and technology can you overcome the deficit. Combining that by changing the structure and incentives of society will amplify that effect.

If people are continuously trying and failing to implement exercise and weight loss programs, it suggests that our knowledge and tools are incomplete. If we reach the point that obesity and 'lifestyle' related issues are a non-problem or can be overcome successfully long term, only then it becomes a meaningful choice.

This is why I emphasized knowledge and skills, cause and effect over freedom of choices. Obesity is not just a problem on an individual level, but also on a societal level. If you want to solve them, you must manipulate all the levels of causality.