11–20 of 69 posts
Sundays on HN are a weird thing. It’s the only day of the week when I see the nutty anti-car takes, de-growth takes, climate doomerism, etc. Monday through Saturday, tech news (mostly). Sunday, unhinged nutballism.
What about this is "nutballism"? Reducing dependency on cars and preventing climate disaster are objective goods.
To anyone feeling anxious about the future after reading this article: We have the technology to pause the worst effects of climate change indefinitely for a few billion dollars a year: https://news.uchicago.edu/radical-solution-address-climate-c... It’s far from a complete solution, but it works well enough that the future described in the article is much more a dark fantasy than a likely reality.
Didn't happen.
To anyone feeling anxious about the future after reading this article: We have the technology to pause the worst effects of climate change indefinitely for a few billion dollars a year: https://news.uchicago.edu/radical-solution-address-climate-c... It’s far from a complete solution, but it works well enough that the future described in the article is much more a dark fantasy than a likely reality.
We had the technology to prevent climate change for a few billion dollar per year. Didn't happen.
The availability of economically competitive alternatives to fossil fuels (like cheap solar + batteries) is a very recent development.
As logical as it is, I think advocacy of “degrowth” is a sure formula to put the far right in the driver’s seat and anyone who is seriously concerned about survival as forming another ingroup-outgrouo thing needs and answer to that.
"Optimise" is never a neutral verb, we always optimise /for/.
Growth-above-all capitalists observe, correctly, the correlation between economic output and human wellbeing, and assume, incorrectly, a relationship that is both purely and directly causal and straight-up linear.
What if we optimise for human wellbeing and build a society that works less like a Prescott Pentium 4 and more like an iPhone? Figure out what really matters and then set about doing more with less.
(Answers that will be uncomfortably socialist for some - public-ish goods being more efficient in many cases than private everything, and uncomfortably technocratic for others, but tough...)
Because doing more with more is running out of runway. And in this game, you can't just declare bankruptcy and start again. There's no second chances here.
To anyone feeling anxious about the future after reading this article: We have the technology to pause the worst effects of climate change indefinitely for a few billion dollars a year: https://news.uchicago.edu/radical-solution-address-climate-c... It’s far from a complete solution, but it works well enough that the future described in the article is much more a dark fantasy than a likely reality.
I've made peace with the fact that a portion of humanity is always convinced the world will end soon. I guess it serves some evolutionary purpose, since it's so deeply ingrained. We've done quite well with these people among us so far, despite them always, since the dawn of humanity, being wrong.
Also, the world is not ending. Just the way it has been working since the Industrial age.
Sundays on HN are a weird thing. It’s the only day of the week when I see the nutty anti-car takes, de-growth takes, climate doomerism, etc. Monday through Saturday, tech news (mostly). Sunday, unhinged nutballism.
What about this is "nutballism"? Reducing dependency on cars and preventing climate disaster are objective goods.
Folks in these situations think the idea of not using a car to get around is crazy, because in some ways it is. It’s not the majority of people though. In the US the majority of people, 70%, live within 2 miles of all their basic needs. That’s the distance that more than 25% of people living in Denmark choose to ride a bike for an errand rather than drive.
https://www.visitdenmark.com/press/latest-news/facts-and-fig...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about this is "nutballism"? Reducing dependency on cars and preventing climate disaster are objective goods.
There is no objective proof “global society” will collapse by 2040 as the article claims.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think that apocalypse porn helps the situation. I don't feel a need to see that new Civil War movie.
Where is the Civil War part?
I've made peace with the fact that a portion of humanity is always convinced the world will end soon. I guess it serves some evolutionary purpose, since it's so deeply ingrained. We've done quite well with these people among us so far, despite them always, since the dawn of humanity, being wrong.
The last collapse happended to the natives of a whole continent just a few centuries ago by new types of disease. I don't think they expected that, so they didn't need to be wrong, it just happened.