A graph that should be front-page news • Hacker News Board

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#271

Post by dylan604 » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:50 PM UTC

cratermoon wrote: post #243

cuu508 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What analogy might work better, i.e., be less charged but as precise?

Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to s…

One of my favorite worded bits of machine logic about humans. All of the sci-fi tropes have it. The "I, Robot" movie has similar "my logic is undeniable" comment about the same conclusion of the humans being the problem. I just really liked Agent Smith's specific comments

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#272

Post by Sharlin » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

rektomatic wrote: post #239

Lomlioto wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Isn't that the documentary that cited a study saying all snow would disappear forever from Earth by the year 2013?

I'm not sure if you're being actively malicious or just a great example of how lies can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes, but your comment is a great example of what we're up against here.

If by "all snow would disappear forever from Earth" you meant "the Arctic could be seasonal-ice-free in the summer" by 2013, then, sure.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#273

Post by chrsw » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:55 PM UTC

Climate change is a political problem, not an informational problem.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#274

Post by mrkeen » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

kortilla wrote: post #250

dghlsakjg wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China has a far lower per capita carbon emissions rate than the US. Has a growing share of energy produced by green technology. Is the world leader in manufacturing electric cars and using electric cars. Is the global leader in low cost solar panels and batteries among other green technology. Oh yeah, and a huge portion of their emissions go to making things that Americans consume. On top of all that, they have manag…

The problem is that the earth doesn’t care about a per capita denominator.

Right, so if someone was in the US and didn't think they should take action (because of China), then the obvious reply is that they should take action on the basis of being part of US+China, whose population is far greater than either US or China.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#275

Post by quickthrowman » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:56 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #264

"Earth is moving beyond the range within which modern human civilisation developed." Way, way, way, way overstated. The graph shows a comparison to an average over a few decades. Human civilization is thousands of years old. Does anyone have a graph of what all the El Ninos since the last Ice Age ended have looked like? Of course not. Nobody has that kind of temperature data.

There is not a graph of prehistoric ocean surface temperatures (doesn’t seem possible to obtain this data other than collecting it as it happens as far as I can tell) but there is global historical temperature data. Here is an XKCD comic, scroll to the bottom and pay attention to the rate of change since 1850 vs the prior 20,000 years: https://xkcd.com/1732/

This Wikipedia article has a graph of the last 2000 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surface_temperature

And yes, I am aware that earth has possibly been covered in ice/slush and also that the avg global temp has been 10C (or more) higher than it is now, but humans were not around for either scenario.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#276

Post by MarkusQ » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:57 PM UTC

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #202

brikil wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the planet is gonna be fine in the long term. It's the human race that's in danger... so maybe a win-win from his perspective??

The planet as a rock in space is not something they care about (and you know it). Life (especially sentient animals), on the other hand…

Right. Specifically, "I want the human cancer gone from this planet."

That's a kind of caring, but probably not the sort you were trying to imply.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#277

Post by uv-depression » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 4:57 PM UTC

azan_ wrote: post #258

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.…

> But the claim must be that physical goods can become an arbitrarily small portion of the economy. Yes, if you actually mean infinite growth it’s true. And that’s what I find absurd - why would you care about infinite growth? If you actually care about infinity, then even if you degrowth you will run out of resources because guess what - resources are finite, so the use of resources will have to also be arbitrarily…

What? Some resources are renewable. There's a finite amount of solar energy, but it doesn't "run out" (on human timescales). Growing food doesn't need to remove from the biosphere, even if the way we do it now does do significant damage. So we absolutely must stop using non-renewable resources (i.e. fossil fuels), but if we find an amount of renewable ones combined with recyclable non-renewables (like metal) that are sustainable then we can reach a steady state.

An economic system based on perpetual growth can never reach a steady state, unless you believe that physical goods can become an arbitrarily small portion of the economy.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#278

Post by gruez » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 5:02 PM UTC

midnight_eclair wrote: post #260

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…

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#279

Post by azan_ » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 5:02 PM UTC

uv-depression wrote: post #277

azan_ wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the claim must be that physical goods can become an arbitrarily small portion of the economy. Yes, if you actually mean infinite growth it’s true. And that’s what I find absurd - why would you care about infinite growth? If you actually care about infinity, then even if you degrowth you will run out of resources because guess what - resources are finite, so the use of resources will have to also be arbitrarily…

What? Some resources are renewable. There's a finite amount of solar energy, but it doesn't "run out" (on human timescales). Growing food doesn't need to remove from the biosphere, even if the way we do it now does do significant damage. So we absolutely must stop using non-renewable resources (i.e. fossil fuels), but if we find an amount of renewable ones combined with recyclable non-renewables (like metal) that are…

You can’t reach steady state in ANY economic system because you can’t have 100% efficiency, that’s basic thermodynamics. Resources will keep decreasing no matter what you do. Hence argument about infinite growth is absurd - infinite existence without growth (or with degrowth) is also impossible.

Re: A graph that should be front-page news

#280

Post by childintime » Mon, Jul 13, 2026, 5:05 PM UTC

imperio59 wrote: post #252

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…

The word you're looking for is nuclear. Everywhere.

The word is solar. Instant reduction in CO2 emissions, won't be a decade late, and won't be obsolete by the time it's finally ready. Nuclear is a politician's vanity project. And politicians do have a knack for choosing the wrong thing at the wrong time, by ignoring the market. Just let the engineers make the call.