31–40 of 108 posts
I wonder why "extinction rebellion" types don't love nuclear power more. When it works right we have unlimited clean energy. And when it goes wrong you have a 50,000 year nature preserve.
that begins with none of the existing lifeforms that were there beforehand.
What, did Medium just copy over Stanford's alumni magazine? Here's the original story.[1] [1] https://stanfordmag.org/contents/what-bikini-atoll-looks-lik...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Medium is a publishing/hosting platform for authors. This Medium account is (or purports to be) the official account of the Stanford alumni magazine.
It appears that it was published on medium and subsequently added to the standfordmag site, hence the 2 links to it they're and the notice that new articles are published there. It probably just remains because they have no control over medium, so they can't turn the page into a permanent redirect, and they don't want to just take it down and break links.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only personally know one person who had been an active member in Extinction Rebellion and I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. It seems like they all agree that the amount of growth we have today is unsustainable, but what sustainable growth exactly is and in turn how much growth needs to be compromised is not agreed upon. So I don't believe that endless pursuit of growth is against most of their members opin…
The Sustainable Development Index had Cuba and Equador as the sole sustainable economies in years past. There's no way we're going to convince the middle classes of the central economies to reduce consumption to that level, or even to convince people in that class of development economy to stop aiming for more.
What if there is 200% tariffs on junk they shouldn't be buying anyhow? What if a new car becomes so expensive that the idea of having to replace it in 3-5/years induces outrage and class action lawsuits? What if you were only allowed to own one residence? What if out of season foods were fantastically expensive unless you had a community "garden"?
I know, HN, straight to -4. I'll meet you down there.
I wonder why "extinction rebellion" types don't love nuclear power more. When it works right we have unlimited clean energy. And when it goes wrong you have a 50,000 year nature preserve.
Because a lot of environmental movements aren't rooted in utilitarianism, but in deeper beliefs that the endless pursuit of growth is inherently evil. The basic idea is that tigers and wolves have as much right to the planet as we do, and we've already taken too much. Hence the degrowth movement, etc. This is why many environmental activists see cheap, abundant energy as problematic. It would mean less air pollution…
The oddest thing about this to me is that they don't seem to think through what exactly this implies.
If one truly believes in the need to reduce human population then by far the highest margin things are not things like preserving a few hundred year old forest in England, but mass introduction of contraceptives to the DRC. It'll be places like Nigeria and Congo that dominate in terms of number of humans next century, not dying Europe (whose resource usage will decline even faster as fertility free falls), and those countries are not going to remain low resource consumption for too long.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears that it was published on medium and subsequently added to the standfordmag site, hence the 2 links to it they're and the notice that new articles are published there. It probably just remains because they have no control over medium, so they can't turn the page into a permanent redirect, and they don't want to just take it down and break links.
If I may go off-topic, I wonder why the “Standford” spelling is such a common typo? Is there a linguistic reason for it, or is it some sort of infectious meme?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Sustainable Development Index had Cuba and Equador as the sole sustainable economies in years past. There's no way we're going to convince the middle classes of the central economies to reduce consumption to that level, or even to convince people in that class of development economy to stop aiming for more.
> There's no way we're going to convince the middle classes of the central economies to reduce consumption to that level, or even to convince people in that class of development economy to stop aiming for more. What if there is 200% tariffs on junk they shouldn't be buying anyhow? What if a new car becomes so expensive that the idea of having to replace it in 3-5/years induces outrage and class action lawsuits? What…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears that it was published on medium and subsequently added to the standfordmag site, hence the 2 links to it they're and the notice that new articles are published there. It probably just remains because they have no control over medium, so they can't turn the page into a permanent redirect, and they don't want to just take it down and break links.
If I may go off-topic, I wonder why the “Standford” spelling is such a common typo? Is there a linguistic reason for it, or is it some sort of infectious meme?
Other examples of this effect:
Samson -> Sampson
prince -> prints
hamster -> hampster
warmth -> warmpth
fence -> fents
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Sustainable Development Index had Cuba and Equador as the sole sustainable economies in years past. There's no way we're going to convince the middle classes of the central economies to reduce consumption to that level, or even to convince people in that class of development economy to stop aiming for more.
> There's no way we're going to convince the middle classes of the central economies to reduce consumption to that level, or even to convince people in that class of development economy to stop aiming for more. What if there is 200% tariffs on junk they shouldn't be buying anyhow? What if a new car becomes so expensive that the idea of having to replace it in 3-5/years induces outrage and class action lawsuits? What…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's no way we're going to convince the middle classes of the central economies to reduce consumption to that level, or even to convince people in that class of development economy to stop aiming for more. What if there is 200% tariffs on junk they shouldn't be buying anyhow? What if a new car becomes so expensive that the idea of having to replace it in 3-5/years induces outrage and class action lawsuits? What…
People would correctly identify that their standard of living is being reduced for ideological reasons without tangible individual benefits and would likely not respond well to that, resulting in a loss of political power for whatever movement instituted those policies and a reversal of said policies.
You have to pitch things the correct way, and it would really help if it wasn't treated as an "Ideological" thing but an ecological and humanitarian thing.
It is not okay to shove our pollution, poor wages and working conditions, and so on, to another country, nor its population. Arguing that it's okay if Chinese and vietnamese and indian folks are treated poorly, have poor health outcomes, and so on, just so long as we get shein and temu and amazon and walmart...
The "there's plenty for everyone, consume buy purchase, it's ok!" is just a lie. you can't do that without harming someone else.