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

Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

undrr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 255 posts

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#111

Post by ben_w »

calvano915 wrote: post #78
lm28469 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was viable technology! Both were viable, one was much more easily developed. We can talk viability all day long, sadly it's history and there isn't much to discuss. Solar panels are also viable and cheap right now, yet we don't use them much. Something existing and working doesn't mean it scales as easily as the alternatives. If electricity storage is still a problem in 2022 you can imagine that it would be extr…

The viability was not properly assessed in regards to externalities of the targeted tech. Climate change, security related to oil, etc was not properly priced in.

I think everyone who had a vote in 1922 and thought “Climate change? That won’t affect me!” (and almost everyone who also said “or my children or grandchildren”) would have been correct.

What are we doing wrong today with that level of disregard for things that may affect our great-great-grandchildren, and why?

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#112

Post by MrMan »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #104
jmyeet wrote: post #95

Another perspective: humanity's biggest problem is our inability to understand the exponential function [1]. As for climate change, the only way that ends is after massive death and destruction or due to economics (specifically: carbon emission sources get replaced because they're cheaper). It's too large, expensive and long-term for people to care otherwise. The pandemic should've dispelled any notions you may have…

Are you suggesting that the only way to avoid anthropogenic climate change is a massive die off humans?

This is the new HN shrug - just go about your business and maybe the oligarchs will genocide all the non-rationlists

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#113

Post by inter_netuser »

phkahler wrote: post #39
jolux wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that economic growth is extremely important to developing economies as well. It’s one thing to say we should limit growth, or deprioritize it, or whatever, but in practice this means forcing poor countries to accept lower standards of living. That’s the real trade-off here.

Growth can't continue indefinitely. In fact a lot of growth today is actually fudging the numbers to make them look good.

why, because we ran out of habitable planets in the galaxy?

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#114

Post by lm28469 »

raspberry1337 wrote: post #83
lm28469 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I stopped respecting the UN when they said they criticized Elon Musk The UN isn't perfect but it sure as hell better than no communication between countries at all. Elon Musk is insignificant compared to that, "I stopped respecting the biggest world forum when they criticised an egomaniac entrepreneur" jeez... > Bureaucrats with humanities degrees at the UN don't solve problems, if they were solved, their jobs woul…

>The UN isn't perfect but it sure as hell better than no communication between countries at all. False equivalence, a typical error to defend something bad that it is in fact better than null, like we wouldnt have intercommunication without such a bureaucratic money sink >Elon Musk is insignificant compared to that, He writes, in a thread where the UN asks Elon for more money >egomaniac entrepreneur" Jealousy is such…

> like we wouldnt have intercommunication without such a bureaucratic money sink

I talk facts you talks hypothetical non existent scenarios, but go ahead and explain why ~200 countries are in a 80 years old organisation if alternatives are so good. It's like saying a company can function without any managers or meetings, sure you'll still have communication but nothing as serious/organised/efficient

> What has the UN done beside spending money ineffectively?

Open an history book, there have been hundreds of missions, if you put a bit of good faith in it it really isn't that hard

> world hunger can and will be solved, but not by the UN.

By who then ? Musk ? Bezos ? Some hypothetical person/organization that only exists in your mind and that might make it happen at some point in an equally hypothetical future ?

> Jealousy is such a pathethic feeling - Tolstoy

How's that an argument ? The dude works 95% of his awake time, can't even take care of his own kids, it's the rich guy I'm the least jealous of, and on top of that I absolutely disagree with his ideas.

> He writes, in a thread where the UN asks Elon for more money

? It was a PR stunt from Musk, like 90% of what he does, if you can't see through his bullshit I feel sad for you, jealousy is bad but worshipping people like him is equally dumb.

By the way The UN Musk discussion didn't go the way you're trying to portray it. The UN never asked Musk anything and never talked about ending world hunger for 6B, on top of that Musk bailed out of the discussion, so really there is nothing going his way on this topic, at least get your basic facts straight

https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-solve-world-hunger

https://twitter.com/WFPChief/status/1454883966071230472

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#115

Post by temp8964 »

sgift wrote: post #73
temp8964 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. China with a level 4 biolab should be compared to Yemen or Sub-Saharan Africa. LOL.

There are two BSL4 labs in Sub-Saharan Africa. One in Gabon, one in South Africa.

Then he should name specific countries, not just the region.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#116

Post by ben_w »

2000UltraDeluxe wrote: post #17
zirobi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were incredibly disingenuous about the Elon Musk thing. He said he'd sell $6bn of Tesla stock and donate it if they could provide an open source plan to completely solve world hunger. They said they'd written a private plan to reduce world hunger then criticised him for not making the donation. Whatever you think of Elon, I don't think he acted in bad faith here.

Definitely not. Musk did not ask for anything outrageous in return for the money. It was a PR disaster from the UN's point of view. Perhaps their perception of the risk of calling Elon Musk out like that was broken?

While I was less than impressed by what I saw, I think calling it “a PR disaster” overstates the impact. I observed people reading into both parties what I already know they wanted to believe about each of Musk and the UN.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#117

Post by sidewndr46 »

I_DRINK_KOOLAID wrote: post #43
temp8964 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also do remember WHO played political game on the side of China at the beginning of the pandemic. That’s one of the reasons we got in this new SARS.

Wuhan had its first cases on Dec-17th , on Jan-14th the sequence was out and shipped across the globe. If you think that delay is bad wait and see if a pandemic develops in Yemen or in Sub-Saharan Africa...those countries would need 8-9 months to notice an outbreak not to mention sequencing. We have an example with HIV. It made the leap somewhere in Africa between 1945 and 1952. The world noticed it when it arrived t…

Are you really suggesting that the first case of COVID was actually documented medically? Or that Dec 17th was the first case that was documented? It seems highly unlikely anyone actually ID'd patient zero.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#118

Post by infogulch »

mort96 wrote: post #100
roenxi wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you of the opinion that letting the free market set interest rates is going to cause measurable levels of brain damage? The official policy position is that the free market won't gamble enough if left alone and that it needs to be forced away from conservative plays. We must admit that this is, potentially, a contributing factor to the lack of responsible long term thinking in markets that are influenced by money…

I was specifically talking about the last paragraph, that the solution is to not "meddle" in general. It's quite possible that the way interest rates are set is problematic, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that. But clearly there are problems where meddling is necessary.

Humans have a strong universal bias towards additive solutions, even when subtractive solutions are clearly better. I doubt regulatory policymakers are immune.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#119

Post by eggsmediumrare »

glitchc wrote: post #103
jmyeet wrote: post #95

Another perspective: humanity's biggest problem is our inability to understand the exponential function [1]. As for climate change, the only way that ends is after massive death and destruction or due to economics (specifically: carbon emission sources get replaced because they're cheaper). It's too large, expensive and long-term for people to care otherwise. The pandemic should've dispelled any notions you may have…

Well, the US military might is reliant on a resource it does not actually produce locally (in sufficient quantities). If the govt. did not exert control over other sources, it would quickly lose access, rendering much of the heavy machinery useless. The Navy is the most vulnerable to an oil shortage.

The US is an energy exporter now.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#120

Post by nonrandomstring »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #97
nonrandomstring wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one ended up easier to develop than the other. Because many hundreds of millions in research money went into doing so. Science and technology are not blind pursuits whereby we stumble across answers handed down by the gods. We progress according to our motivations. This is the difference between so-called "technological determinism" which is an ignorant quasi-religious shrugging abdication of reason, and "science a…

>Because many hundreds of millions in research money went into doing so. Because that's where the progress was. They simply couldn't make progress on batteries at the time. Making better engines is a question of manufacturing and metallurgy, stuff that is well within scope for the world as it existed 100yr ago. Making better batteries requires a much higher state of technological progress because you first need to un…

> Because that's where the progress was. They simply couldn't make progress on batteries at the time.

That's a descent into circular arguments and post-facto analysis.

The early twentieth century was a golden age of chemistry. We had the technology to do fractional distillation of petrochemicals and synthesise complex organics. To suppose that we could not have punched gigantic breakthroughs in ionic electro-chemistry is blinkered. Motor technology equally so. Sintering, rare-earth alloys, elaborate windings, and complex field analysis was well within the metallurgy and other technologies you describe, without computers.

But there can be no meaningful argument around it if you only hark back to "what was", instead of analysing the interplay between economic motives and progress. We're arguing at cross purposes if you're bringing up "facts" of history, and I'm talking about socio-economic dynamics.

And, more importantly, why?

So we can preserve a comfort that a 100 year journey into fossil fuels was not a colossal human mistake? Rationalising away the narrative that plausible alternative technological pathways existed achieves what exactly?

It's not like can change the past. So what is going on?

> There's a reason we didn't get economically viable and high enough performance batteries for consumer electronics

We didn't get anything. We didn't want them.

I appreciate this philosophy of technology stuff can be disorientating. It is scary stuff. Because if we admit that there are alternatives, that this is not a Panglossian universe and that we've made gigantic errors in the past, that opens up the terrifying possibility that we're making grave errors right now (which I believe we are). The myth of technology as a deterministically unfolding, monotonic mechanism is very comforting in that world.

Post reply on HN