If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home? • Hacker News Board

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#111

Post by mfatica » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 2:03 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #89

mfatica wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have proper right to those resources then they certainly can consume them however they want.

Beyond the basic rights afforded by civil society one has remarkably few rights without corresponding responsibilities . Consumption comes with a lot of them. How are you proposing to fairly and equitably address those while leaving a better world for our children?

Not sure what methodology you follow, but freedom means freedom. If I don't care to leave a better world than that's my right. It doesn't make me a good person but freedom is freedom.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#112

Post by eropple » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 3:54 AM UTC

mfatica wrote: post #111

eropple wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond the basic rights afforded by civil society one has remarkably few rights without corresponding responsibilities . Consumption comes with a lot of them. How are you proposing to fairly and equitably address those while leaving a better world for our children?

Not sure what methodology you follow, but freedom means freedom. If I don't care to leave a better world than that's my right. It doesn't make me a good person but freedom is freedom.

So, to be clear, you don't subscribe to any social contract? None? You don't think there's any responsibility for one's externalities? None?

Because uh. That's literally sociopathic.

Re: If Seeing the World Helps Ruin It, Should We Stay Home?

#113

Post by bubblewrap » Thu, Jun 06, 2019, 6:00 AM UTC

beat wrote: post #110

bubblewrap wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said, even without growth, there are already Billions of people hungry for a more CO2 intense lifestyle. And for example birth rates dropping off could still mean more births than, say, 50 years ago, because overall there are more people. (I'm too lazy to look up the numbers, because as I said, there already are a lot of people). So if it all evens out eventually - what population size will we have reached by th…

Population should level out around 11B, assuming no big surprises/shocks. And people aren't hungry for a more CO2 intense lifestyle - just a richer one. That's why getting off fossil fuels is so incredibly vital. Luckily, I think that moment is upon us, and we'll see fossil use die off over the next few decades. Renewables aren't just cleaner, they're cheaper now. And I don't think your chart proves your point. While…

Your belief that everything could just be solved with renewables is incredibly naive. It's simply not proven that it can be done yet. And even renewables produce a lot of CO2. Even if they produce less than fossile fuels, the needs for 11 Billion people would be significant.

A richer lifestyle means more CO2.

I don't even know where you get your beliefs from, that CO2 neutral life would be easy and cheap.

As for counteracting phenomena: again, it is not a law of nature that birth rates drop as people get wealthier. Even now for example there are subgroups in wealthy nations that still have high birth rates. I'm not saying it WILL happen, just that it can. And 50 years are not a very long timespan to observe to be assured about the effect of dropping birth rates.