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

China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 666 posts

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#511

Post by Aunche »

somenameforme wrote: post #446
Arainach wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LBJ made more progress on social issues than any President with the possible exception of FDR. Certainly dramatically more progress per year in office. Jimmy Carter was also socially motivated. Reagan changed the game, Newt Gingrich destroyed cooperation, and now we're living in the world they created.

Modern politicians are really good at framing everything as being the most socially motivated thing in the world. And I think LBJ is the grandfather of this stuff. When you read of his private discussions, socially motivated is just about the last thing he was. He wanted absolute political power and understood that he could create systems of dependency to achieve it. It just so happens that systems of dependency can…

>Give a man a fish every day and he'll do whatever you want to keep getting that fish

This is complete nonsense. Certain demographics that depend the most on welfare oppose it the most. Mitch McConnell responded to concerns about the political impact of Medicaid cuts saying that voters would "get over it".

LBJ was certainly motivated by power, but he also genuinely cared about social issues as well. He knew that the Civil Rights Acts would overall cost him far more politically than he gained in terms of support from newly enfranchised black voters.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#512

Post by wslh »

yanhangyhy wrote: post #233

I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. Xi Jinping may be a…

In Midas World, The Servant of the People, by Frederik Pohl [1] robots gain voting rights and outnumber humans in elections.

Also, in the context of this thread there is a famous quote by Pohl: "Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it" [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas_World

[2] https://pit.begghilos2.net/Sayings/Laws-Other.html

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#513

Post by somenameforme »

BrenBarn wrote: post #385
somenameforme wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be coy, but what do you mean by that? The reason I ask is because I think many of us use these terms, but without ever thinking about exactly which behaviors we're critiquing, or how they relate to what we truly value. For instance both the Roman and Greek Empires deserve immense respect, yet they were both often imperial empires ruled by dictators. The same is no less true of many societies that played key ro…

I wouldn't think the Roman empire was a good thing if we had it today. We can "respect" those older cultures in their context while still recognizing that they were in many ways horrifying by modern standards.

In what way would they be horrifying? The Romans advanced public works, infrastructure, and other such things on an absolutely monumental scale. Many roads built by the Roman Empire are still even in use today! And I think Marcus Aurelius is perhaps the best example in history of a genuinely socially motivated leader. And the lands under their rule were completely able to maintain their own unique identity so long as it did not lead to attempts at rebellion/revolution.

Of course one practical issue you run into is that while Aurelius was perhaps one of the greatest leaders of all time, his son and heir - Commodus, was perhaps one of the worst of all time. But at least if we speak of the eras prior to its decline, Pax Romana in particular, I don't really see how the Roman Empire would be horrifying. And in any case dramatic deterioration of the quality of public leadership, probably presaging a more broad decline, is clearly not limited to systems of minority rule.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#514

Post by [deleted] »

profsummergig wrote: post #44
jillesvangurp wrote: post #36

I've been binging a lot of videos on things like rewilding and other approaches that can be used to restore landscapes. The Chinese have successfully executed a number of large scale projects over the decades. They started this early. Where other countries talked about doing things, the Chinese went ahead and did those things. One of their projects is allowing them to undertake infrastructure projects in the desert.…

Do you know why the mounds with half-moon shapes? Why is it more effective than simply digging a circular hole in the ground?

[deleted]

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#515

Post by z2 »

ivell wrote: post #386
z2 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That list shows coercive or authoritarian behavior, not classical imperialism. Imperialism means establishing colonies or directly ruling foreign territories for economic extraction. China today doesn’t occupy or govern other sovereign states. The South China Sea, Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan are all disputes within--except Taiwan + the South China Sea--undisputed national boundaries.[1] Belt and Road l…

Tibet was a self governing entity until Chinese invasion. Though China would disagree. Tibet's leaders are still in exile and one of the key issues of China with India. If the argument is that Tibet was not a country, then the same applies to Taiwan. Taiwan is not internationally recognized as a country, except for a few nations.

Autonomy is not sovereignty. Tibet wasn’t “invaded” like a foreign country, it had been de facto autonomous after the chaotic Qing collapse, but no one recognized it as sovereign. If I were to guess at China's narrative, the PLA’s 1950 entry is probably seen as a reconsolidation of territory long claimed by China, not new imperial conquest. And Taiwan’s status only survived because US intervention froze the Chinese civil war’s outcome, not because it was ever outside China’s historical frame. Again, indeed, Qing imperialist actions 300 years ago led to the current map, and you might see me as pedantic here but calling China (or modern US/Japan/Britain for that matter) imperialist might feel satisfying, but analytically it dampens the real and harmful empire-building sense of the term used in history.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#516

Post by myrmidon »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #259
kulahan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ecologically speaking, the US is an absolute monster of a nightmare. The American carbon footprint is incredible.

How do you figure? Carbon footprint only matters per unit of output. Americans produce 2-2.5x more output per ton of carbon emitted than the average country. And this despite the fact that the US is (1) the second largest manufacturer in the world, (2) one of the largest agricultural producers in the world, and (3) the largest oil producer in the world. The US has a surprisingly low per capita carbon footprint given…

What do you mean by "output"?

If you compare emissions/export volume, then the US is behind lots of European countries, like Germany (or even Italy). Comparisons with the Netherlands (heavy agriculture) or Norway (big oil producer) are looking really bad, too: US is around 15 (tons CO2/capita/year), while China is at 8, Europe at 6ish and India at ~2.

The only countries I would classify as "surprisingly low" is France (at 4.5, thanks to massive past investments into electrification and nuclear energy) as well as India (at 2, mainly a result of low industrialization, and likely to rise sharply).

US + Canada is doing quite badly at CO2 emissions, even compared to wealthier nations like Luxembourg or Switzerland (!!). While part of it may be low population density, that is not the full story either (compare Norway).

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#517

Post by hollywood_court »

refurb wrote: post #475
ActorNightly wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need press for everyone to see that China is straight killing it in almost every sector. Manufacturing, compute, you name it. Sure, they aren't without problems. And as for free press, look at where freedom of press took United States. You have companies like Fox news that "aren't actually news, just entertainment", who blatantly lie about election fraud. You have podcasters like Joe Rogan who are at the sa…

This is a wild comment. It claims free speech is being taken away, then gets upset people use it (Fox News). Then it celebrates a law that actually curtails free speech.

What's wilder is the fact that my generation was told that rock music, rap music, video games, etc would be lead to the decline of our society. But it turns out that Fox News was far more destructive than all of those things combined.

In the US, organized religion and Fox News are the two most destructive forces in our society.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#518

Post by akimbostrawman »

mcdeltat wrote: post #306
hooverd wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah, the classic "you are a sacrifice I'm willing to make"

Oh no, to save the world we'll have to take the train to work instead of a car...

Shortly followed by eat the bugs and live in the post. Only for us plebs ofc....

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#519

Post by throw0101c »

yanhangyhy wrote: post #233

I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. Xi Jinping may be a…

> “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.”

Having fewer children followed "naturally" as child mortality dropped and women's education and workforce participation rose. You can quite clearly see China's birth rate dropping before the one-child policy was enacted:

* https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2015/11/20/will-the-...

* https://populationmatters.org/news/2021/06/chinas-changing-c...

Even India, which has also been growing in prosperity, has seen a declining fertility rate without a heavy handed government policy:

* https://archive.is/https://www.economist.com/china/2015/07/1...

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#520

Post by zelos »

simsla wrote: post #466
shubhamjain wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. They haven't, imo. I am from India, and I have been hearing for the last two decades how we have avoided same mistakes as China and the latter is headed for a demographic collapse. China is only marching forward, and focusing more on automation to hedge its bets. While overpopulation in India has choked almost every city in Ind…

European here. One of the problems is that many of our society's systems are predicated on a growing population. Social security and pensions, for example, are structured not unlike a pyramid scheme: for every old person we should have more than one working young person. People take more than they give. Fixing that will be painful, but possible. More worrying is how many countries' birth rates have fallen below the r…

> for every old person we should have more than one working young person.

I never understood this thinking. Doesn't it assume infinite population is possible?

Post reply on HN