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

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#11

Post by kragen »

calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

We can divide possible strategies into four groups: those that help the ecosystem and hurt humans in the short term (like your extreme example), those that hurt the ecosystem and hurt humans in the short term (like nuclear war or Agent Orange), those that help the ecosystem and help humans in the short term (like moving from fossil fuels to solar), and those that hurt the ecosystem and help humans in the short term (like expanding the use of fossil fuels). (And of course there are many things that are on the borderline.)

You are setting up an opposition between strategy groups 1 and 4, but ignoring the existence of the other two groups. But group 3, the Bright Green group, is where all the action is!

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#12

Post by majormajor »

calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

Let's get even more pedantic!

"Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't going anywhere. It will survive extinction events.

"Preserve nonhuman species and the current state of the environment" is where your "get rid of all the humans and their activity" proposal would fit.

But is that actually what anyone wants? The real goal for most people would be, I wager, much more like: "Preserve both human and non-human life, with 21st-century-wealthy-country-standards-of-living, and also preserve the current state of the environment."

In short: you're making "save the planet" into a very particular strawman that misrepresents what people who say it mean.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#13

Post by LAC-Tech »

sushisource wrote: post #9
calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way. People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern agrarian societal model. So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is interested in solving (or, mayb…

I mean we could do less.

COVID showed that (a lot of us ) really don't need to be commuting and flying all that much. It's tragic that 'society' wasted a perfectly good pandemic by not learning any of the things it showed us.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#14

Post by calibas »

sushisource wrote: post #9
calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way. People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern agrarian societal model. So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is interested in solving (or, mayb…

This seems to be the standard response, I've certainly heard it before, but all I'm suggesting is doing less. I'm not a luddite, I'm not arguing for a "pre-modern agrarian societal model", I'm arguing for a post-modern agrarian society that balances technology, industry and the ecosystem.

We consume enormously more than we need, and far more than the Planet can handle. I feel like the one of the few sane people when I'm saying it's imperative that we lower our consumption right now.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#16

Post by gumby »

calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all.

Actually the planet doesn’t give a shit either way. People have been busy changing it, and it has simply reacted. Now they are selfishly unhappy with it because it’s less congenial than it used to be for vertebrates, or specifically humans. They just want an earth that will support them in continuing to do the things they want.*

Perhaps in 30 megayears the cockroach archeologists will marvel at all the weird endoskeletal animals in the fossil record and wonder if any of them were intelligent.

* this is why I don’t like population-based arguments about the climate. If you believe the earth should be optimized for humans, how can you simultaneously say “but only for these ones?” Making people is an activity some people choose to do.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#17

Post by slg »

calibas wrote: post #14
sushisource wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way. People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern agrarian societal model. So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is interested in solving (or, mayb…

This seems to be the standard response, I've certainly heard it before, but all I'm suggesting is doing less. I'm not a luddite, I'm not arguing for a "pre-modern agrarian societal model", I'm arguing for a post-modern agrarian society that balances technology, industry and the ecosystem. We consume enormously more than we need, and far more than the Planet can handle. I feel like the one of the few sane people when…

Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of the few sane people because you are of course technically right. However no one will listen to you because "even if that’s true, there’s no profit in thinking about it" as it is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There is no way to get a critical mass of people to return to an agrarian society until they have no other real choice because collectively modern consumption makes our individual lives more enjoyable. That is why reducing emissions is expensive and painful because the cheap and easy answer of just not consuming isn't feasible.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#18

Post by rkk3 »

LAC-Tech wrote: post #13
sushisource wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way. People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern agrarian societal model. So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is interested in solving (or, mayb…

I mean we could do less . COVID showed that (a lot of us ) really don't need to be commuting and flying all that much. It's tragic that 'society' wasted a perfectly good pandemic by not learning any of the things it showed us.

If anything I was more surprised at the lack of impact. Emissions only fell by around 6.4%

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#19

Post by haswell »

sushisource wrote: post #9
calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way. People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern agrarian societal model. So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is interested in solving (or, mayb…

I think it's interesting, and here's why.

Think about this as it relates to other common problems humans face like debt or the need to lose weight.

I can put all of my energy and focus into making more money so I can get my debt under control, but that won't matter if I have really bad spending habits.

I can put all of my energy into exercising more and burning the calories I take in, but that won't matter if I'm eating more calories than I can reasonably burn in a day.

I'd argue that doing less is still doing something. It's just looking for a solution in a different place. It's focusing on the cause, instead of trying to put a band-aid on the effect.

This falls into the category of "low hanging fruit", and one of the easiest potential sources of meaningful change. Inventing new things, increasing energy efficiency, etc. are all possible optimizations, but are not guaranteed. Eating less, spending less, and burning less energy are all but guaranteed to have a positive result.

The real question of interest is now: how much are people willing to not do?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#20

Post by calibas »

majormajor wrote: post #12
calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

Let's get even more pedantic! "Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't going anywhere. It will survive extinction events. "Preserve nonhuman species and the current state of the environment" is where your "get rid of all the humans and their activity" proposal would fit. But is that actually what anyone wants? The real goal for most people would be, I wager, much more like: "Preserve both human and…

So when people say "save the planet" they also mean preserving a completely unsustainable standard of living? I disagree, but if I wanted a strawman to shoot down that's a good one.

To be clear, I meant protecting the current ecosystems and I don't believe we need to regress or eliminate the human race to do that either.

Post reply on HN