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

There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

users.wpi.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 468 posts

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#451

Post by GlickWick »

worksonmine wrote: post #450
GlickWick wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is the whole "nature existed and will continue to exist" thing is honestly trite. Nature created us, we're just another output in the universal system. There's no real point behind the whole statement that nature will exist without us, and it contributes nothing to any discussion besides unnecessary smugness.

Of course there's reason to discuss if endless parking lots and industrial complexes are necessary. Claiming they're part of nature is like claiming HIV is a natural part of the human body. It exists yes but maybe we're better off without it? I see humanity as it exists today as a cancer on the planet and it's not out of smugness. The pursuit of infinite growth is ruining everything that's beautiful around us. We can…

There's a difference between discussing our impact on the environment vs. the silly "lol nature will outlive us" stuff, which contributes nothing.

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#452

Post by foco_tubi »

inigyou wrote: post #443
foco_tubi wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you’re getting more conservative as you grow older? Wow, how novel!

Conservatism correlates better with wealth than with age FWIW. Older generations got wealthier as they got older, but younger ones get less wealthy.

I’m not sure that’s true anymore, at least for Gen Z and Millennials

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#453

Post by altmanaltman »

microtonal wrote: post #448
altmanaltman wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opnion is that you're underestimating the event where a country uses a nuclear bomb in this way. It signals that they are willing to cross any red lines and become an existential threat. In fact, imagine an alternative scenario where Russia straight up nukes Kiev instead of the gurella warfare and then invasaion/special millitary operation. In that case, there is no way Putin is not done within a week simply due t…

The moment you use them, you lose their value as a deterrance anymore. If they used nukes in Ukraine, the strategic deterrence against other nations with nukes would still be in place. They didn't use them against Ukraine because of many other reasons, e.g. because they would have taken Kiev in days, it didn't make sense to make land that you want to conquer radioactive, and the political fallout would be too big. I…

> If they used nukes in Ukraine, the strategic deterrence against other nations with nukes would still be in place.

No it wouldn't be a deterrance anymore again other nations, it will be an actual threat. If they actually do show they are willing to use them in any capacity, esp over Ukraine which is agression they started, other countries cannot just ignore it or bow down to Russia. It also not a deterrance to nuclear powers in the first place and in the second, it becomes an existential threat again.

As for why they didn't use it in Ukraine is primary because they have never done so. The political fallout will be suicide, there is no other option.

I don't see how China fits in with the tactical nukes thing. Your position of "Russia could have nuked, they just didn't want nuclear fallout, political fallout and China being mean" instead of "they didn't nuke because it will be unprecedented and consequeunces will be dire bodering on absolute destruction" seems weak to me.

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#454

Post by NoImmatureAdHom »

King-Aaron wrote: post #416
NoImmatureAdHom wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's tough to say. On the one hand, one of the major nuclear powers is embroiled in a war in Europe. Which is extremely bad news and clearly makes the probability of nuclear war increase. On the other hand, we're getting better and better at targeting, which means much smaller warheads can get the job done. We have little use for 50MT behemoths any more (excepting doomsday weapons).

If Annie Jacobsens research is at all accurate, she mentions that since the 60s they've run simulations constantly to project how a nuclear conflict would escalate, and in that time there's never been a simulation that resulted in an outcome other than complete and total global nuclear exchange. Even from a small scale tactical deployment, simulations always show it escalating to a full cataclysm. I personally don't…

If "complete and total global nuclear exchange" means "we shoot off all the nukes we've got", then how bad that is depends on how many nukes there are - not whether we shoot all of them or not.

"Complete and total global nuclear exchange" is not so bad when there are 50 100Kt nukes, and is really, really bad when there are 10,000 10Mt nukes. And we've drastically reduced both the number of nuclear weapons and their average yield since the cold war (https://fas.org/initiative/status-world-nuclear-forces/). Which is great news!

I'm no expert, but from a little reading it seems all-out nuclear war would be not just survivable for the species, but not even that bad for most of humanity comparing to disasters of yore. South America, Oceania, much of Asia, and Africa would be ~fine.

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#455

Post by TimTheTinker »

foco_tubi wrote: post #449
TimTheTinker wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm astounded that people actually think this is mental gymnastics... would you like the KGB banging on your neighbor's door at 3am and sending them to the gulag for saying something critical of the government?

No, but you seem to be conflating an economic model with a particular governmental regime.

Collectivization is impossible without expropriating people by force. How would you propose accomplishing that without the government's involvement? Central planning also requires a government to allocate resources and fix prices.

If you disagree, I'm curious what government types you think collectivization and central planning can be accomplished with besides those that directly take charge of those things.

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#456

Post by foco_tubi »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #455
foco_tubi wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but you seem to be conflating an economic model with a particular governmental regime.

Collectivization is impossible without expropriating people by force. How would you propose accomplishing that without the government's involvement? Central planning also requires a government to allocate resources and fix prices. If you disagree, I'm curious what government types you think collectivization and central planning can be accomplished with besides those that directly take charge of those things.

We have some good examples to pick from throughout history - postwar Britain nationalizing major industries, Sweden’s soc-dem era, Allende’s Chile (though the US put a quick stop to that), Israeli kibbutzim…

You are collapsing three different questions into one illogical conclusion, leaning heavily on one of the least successful examples of collectivization in the history of mankind. One could use your line of reasoning to argue that because there are bad capitalist countries with authoritarian governments, who do indeed go door to door and murder its citizenry as political suppression, capitalism itself is bad. But they still wouldn’t be logically correct.

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#457

Post by bean469 »

laszlojamf wrote: post #66

The most interesting thing about science fiction to me isn't the things the authors get right, but what they get wrong. Like, the whole house talking in a ChatGPT voice, intelligent appliances, etc: brilliant prescience. But he still thought we'd be having linoleum on our floors...

Linoleum is kind of great, actually. It doesn't get cold as much as tiles and is super easy to clean

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#458

Post by WorldMaker »

twotwotwo wrote: post #28

Okay, a stretch for HN, but: singer-songwriter Silvana Estrada named an album released last year Vendrán Suaves Lluvias (meaning There Will Come Soft Rains). She talked about how she and her brother read The Martian Chronicles as kids and she remembered the Sara Teasdale poem quoted at the end. She said she composed the songs at a difficult time in her life and, I guess, something about that image in the story (and t…

Related music note that Molly Lewis released a song of the title specifically on August 4th, for reasons of thinking about the story, which includes the story text: https://www.patreon.com/molly/posts/today-is-august-16572971...

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#459

Post by worksonmine »

GlickWick wrote: post #451
worksonmine wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there's reason to discuss if endless parking lots and industrial complexes are necessary. Claiming they're part of nature is like claiming HIV is a natural part of the human body. It exists yes but maybe we're better off without it? I see humanity as it exists today as a cancer on the planet and it's not out of smugness. The pursuit of infinite growth is ruining everything that's beautiful around us. We can…

There's a difference between discussing our impact on the environment vs. the silly "lol nature will outlive us" stuff, which contributes nothing.

It's the takeaway from the story in OP and the poem with the same title, so I'd say it's very much on-topic. Your only contribution is "acktually, humans are nature too and once the universe collapses everything is doomed" and shut down any other discussion as "silly".

Re: There Will Come Soft Rains (1950) [pdf]

#460

Post by dbspin »

jltsiren wrote: post #396
dbspin wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beautifully articulated, but I have to disagree with you on nuclear power. We're close to the point where renewables and battery tech are a solution to all our power needs. Remaining obstacles being primarily political / geopolitical. Meanwhile, after 70 years we're still no closer to a safe long term solution for nuclear waste. Every new and untested nuclear reactor design falls into the same pro-innovation bias of…

Incidentally, Finland just took a key step today towards issuing an operating permit for the Onkalo repository. After today, the permit is mostly matter of bureaucracy, and the final disposal of spent nuclear fuel could start by the end of the year. The issues with renewables and nuclear waste are similar. The general solutions have been known for decades, but progress has been slow, as people have been unwilling to…

They're not remotely similar. The consequences for a spill of nuclear waste - either from a storage facility that's been compromised or hit by a strike during a war, or for example the sinking of a delivery ship that's transporting waste - are enormous. Ditto the largely unsolved costs of decommissioning.
Post reply on HN