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

Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 245 posts

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#111

Post by kruffalon »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #77
kruffalon wrote: post #72

It would be nice if this meant anything. My old cynic, grumpy mind can't see this as anything but virtue signaling. I would be overjoyed to be wrong. One corner stone of the EU is the 4 freedoms[0] that among other things denies public institutions the ability to look at anything besides the monetary cost when deciding who to contract for anything. And as JIT[1] no longer only applies to goods but also to people noon…

You know? These days I actually prefer virtue signalling to the trend of not having any virtues at all and being proud of it.

Very good point!

I agree, you're absolutely right.

I'm just kind of old, tired, grumpy and sad about the state of the world and my low capacity to influence the general direction or even small local things.

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#112

Post by whimsicalism »

projektfu wrote: post #73
pfdietz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back when LtG came out, there was a study of the limits imposed by resource availability. The conclusion was that, to first approximation, the only resource that we had to worry about was energy. Fossil fuels would have to go, but everything else was either available in effectively unlimited amounts or could be substituted with things that were. An example of the latter was mercury -- effectively all previous uses ha…

When is the world population expected to decline? Or are you talking about a specific country?

about 50-60 years iirc

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#113

Post by ericmcer »

delegate wrote: post #84

When I was a child, I was spending my summers at my grandparents. They had a cozy house in the village. They worked the land, they had a few animals. They grew their food. They sold some wine and fruit at the market. They had a big house, land, clean air, clean water and they were healthy. They celebrated the holidays, had many friends, went to church, weddings, funerals, etc. Villagers always greeted them and stoppe…

The only justification would be that we are in some liminal space and are living in the confusing period leading up to some tech utopia.

You also can still live in the way your grandparents did. In the rural USA 10+ acres is going to cost less than a condo in the city. We are just terrified of uncertainty nowadays. Maybe all the technology and distractions keep us from hitting that tipping point of despair/discomfort that would drive us to take risky actions.

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#114

Post by emchammer »

trgn wrote: post #91
therealwhytry wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

simple, boomer brain rot subsidized for the last 50 years via currency debasement that leads our "leaders" to feel it is the only path forward. that is probably an easy path forward in their mind, as they are on death's door holding the ladder they pulled up behind them.

boomers didnt want to let go of the welfare state their parents and grandparents had introduced, at the same time they live longer, work less, not nearly had as many kids, and did not effectuate the required productivity growth to offset that. they will go down in history as the worst generation in modern history, 100% certain of that.

What welfare state? Do you mean the universal healthcare that they claw away at any cost, like Mitch McConnell onto the podium?

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#115

Post by modo_mario »

bluescrn wrote: post #6

May not be a problem if the trend continues that wealthy/high-consumption cultures choose to stop reproducing?

That started in my country 75 years ago.

Not a single year has our population dropped. We simply introduce fungible economic tokens aka workers from the poorer places and will go far to keep this going even if it's unpopular.

When that too stops so does the music as a baffling amount of the economy and society and it's support systems is predicated on endless inflationary growth. Frankly nobody in this game of musical chairs will fix it till it hits.

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#116

Post by keybored »

enoch_r wrote: post #106
delegate wrote: post #84

When I was a child, I was spending my summers at my grandparents. They had a cozy house in the village. They worked the land, they had a few animals. They grew their food. They sold some wine and fruit at the market. They had a big house, land, clean air, clean water and they were healthy. They celebrated the holidays, had many friends, went to church, weddings, funerals, etc. Villagers always greeted them and stoppe…

For millenia, about 50% of children died before reaching adulthood. https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past We work less than our counterparts 150 years ago: https://ourworldindata.org/working-more-than-ever Air pollution has decreased over the past few decades (probably much further, just don't have data). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/emissions-of-air-pollutan... We're obviously richer, too. You…

1870 is not a great span of time when OP is comparing to some idyllic village life unencumbered by urbanism. Late 19th century had many people in a “rat race” in the city, like work twelve hour days six or seven days a week in a factory type of dead-end race.

But there was something that happened later:

> For those countries with long-run data in this chart, we can see three distinct periods: From 1870 to 1913 there was a relatively slow decline; then from 1913 to 1938 the decline in hours steepened in the midst of the powerful sociopolitical, technological, and economic changes that took shape with World War I, the Great Depression, and the lead-up to World War II; and then after an uptick in hours during and just after World War II, the decline in hours continued for many countries, albeit at a slower pace and with large differences between countries.

The god knows what “sociopolitical changes” could have been about.

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#117

Post by [deleted] »

delegate wrote: post #84

When I was a child, I was spending my summers at my grandparents. They had a cozy house in the village. They worked the land, they had a few animals. They grew their food. They sold some wine and fruit at the market. They had a big house, land, clean air, clean water and they were healthy. They celebrated the holidays, had many friends, went to church, weddings, funerals, etc. Villagers always greeted them and stoppe…

[deleted]

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#118

Post by greygoo222 »

fasterik wrote: post #96
delegate wrote: post #84

When I was a child, I was spending my summers at my grandparents. They had a cozy house in the village. They worked the land, they had a few animals. They grew their food. They sold some wine and fruit at the market. They had a big house, land, clean air, clean water and they were healthy. They celebrated the holidays, had many friends, went to church, weddings, funerals, etc. Villagers always greeted them and stoppe…

This is a completely nostalgic, one-sided view of the urban vs. rural divide. It's also ignorant of the data on the impact of cities on nature. Cities have a lower carbon footprint per capita, lower land use per capita, people own fewer cars, use public transportation more often. If everyone lived in a city, nature would be better off. People live in cities because they are vibrant, they have culture, the arts, intel…

As someone who is sensitive to noise, rural areas bother me far more than urban ones. Traffic is low-frequency and only rarely annoying, but the few times I have lived in rural areas or gone camping, I have been woken up repeatedly by the horrific screeching of birds. Louder, shriller, less predictable than any city noise.

There are birds in cities too, and they are annoying, but they are thankfully drowned out by the cars.

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#119

Post by bovermyer »

modeless wrote: post #89
delegate wrote: post #84

When I was a child, I was spending my summers at my grandparents. They had a cozy house in the village. They worked the land, they had a few animals. They grew their food. They sold some wine and fruit at the market. They had a big house, land, clean air, clean water and they were healthy. They celebrated the holidays, had many friends, went to church, weddings, funerals, etc. Villagers always greeted them and stoppe…

The lifestyle you describe is very cheap and you can certainly afford it, if you wanted. There are plenty of rural small towns you could choose from. Why not do it if it's what you think you want?

Leading a slower existence in harmony with nature and community has its trade-offs.

There are so many things to consider. It's a fascinating topic. For example, if you give up access to restaurants in order to live simply, how does that impact your approach to food in general?

How about losing access to a hospital? What changes do you make to prepare for, or respond to, health crises?

The questions I ask above are from one direction, and only a sample. I think they're demonstrative of the kind of wide context a decision like this has, though.

Re: Obsession with growth is destroying nature, 150 countries warn

#120

Post by ComposedPattern »

delegate wrote: post #84

When I was a child, I was spending my summers at my grandparents. They had a cozy house in the village. They worked the land, they had a few animals. They grew their food. They sold some wine and fruit at the market. They had a big house, land, clean air, clean water and they were healthy. They celebrated the holidays, had many friends, went to church, weddings, funerals, etc. Villagers always greeted them and stoppe…

Living in a big city is usually better for the environment than living in a rural area. City-dwellers live in smaller spaces closer together, so they consume fewer resources and emit less carbon.
Post reply on HN