A graph that should be front-page news

Post by azan_ » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

NoGravitas wrote: post #256

uv-depression wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the claim must be that physical goods can become an arbitrarily small portion of the economy. Nobody would dispute that they've become smaller. Do you believe that food can become arbitrarily cheap relative to total wealth? Or steel, or silicon? In other words, can the food you eat require an arbitrarily small portion of your income? And looking at nation-states only is an accounting trick; the economy is global.…

It appears that they believe you can eat emails (according to the substitutability principle).

Post by NoGravitas » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

inigyou wrote: post #123

sdevonoes wrote: post #78

In a world where we have people like Trump, Musk, Thiel, et al, with extreme power and resources, why would we hope for something like climate change to be addressed? What can scientists do? Even if they are 100% right and can prove it, they have no power to do anything. Governments of the top countries are puppets of the US, so there’s not much to do. Other governments are dealing with more mundane problems. And the…

Note that anyone who suggested actions that would be both implementable by an individual and extremely effective would be rapidly banned from HN. We could build out private solar farms though.

Post by jimbokun » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:43 PM UTC

tancop wrote: post #245

the problem with this kind of article is half of them push a doom angle and the other half talk about carbon footprint. both of them have the same effect making people give up or do useless lifestyle changes that do nothing for the environment. we should be pushing for backend changes that are invisible but actually make things better. that means massive subsidies to build out clean power and electrify everything. po…

Post by quickthrowman » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #262

adrianN wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Optimistic of you to assume it’ll only be fifty years. Do you expect humans to adapt that quickly? The climate will be messed up for centuries at least

Where do you get the "centuries at least" bit? The hole in the ozone layer "repaired itself" much faster after humans made changes. There's no more acid rain in Los Angeles after humans made changes. These all happened within my lifetime. We also saw during covid lock downs how quickly things changed from the sudden slow down in human activity.

Post by kelseyfrog » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

luddit3 wrote: post #205

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, because he's a nutter the graph shouldn't be front page news is the argument then? That'll teach him. He will learn the regret the day he dared say "hey, this graph means we're all gonna die if we don't do something! Look at it!" because we outsmarted him by refusing to look.

The argument is that when a data point comes from a source with such an obvious bias, the data point is called into question.