536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018) • Hacker News Board

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#171

Post by koheripbal » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:29 PM UTC

bwanab wrote: post #5

I’ve recently gotten through this period in the “History of Byzantium” podcast series. Justinian had just recently retaken many of the old western Roman provinces, not least of which was Rome itself, and the breadbasket of North Africa. Things were finally looking good for the Romans again when the plague hit. The armies were unfortunately overextended and now half their ranks were dead or dying. It was an irresistib…

Wonderful series. Absolutely amazing. ...and he's now producing the set that extends through the Crusades.

If you haven't listened to it, the one on the Siege of 717 deserves it's own bowl of popcorn - super super entertaining.

I loved the original The History of Rome podcast that goes through to the fall of the West, but I think I've come to prefer this one even more.

The first few episodes require a little patience as the author gets his footing - but it pays off. Awesome podcast.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#172

Post by lgl » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:33 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #130

pogimabus wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Becoming multiplanetary IS handling it, just not in a necessarily "ideal" way. The problem is that we don't want to have the reset button hit and have every human in existence set back to the stone age technologically; having multiple self sustaining human societies on multiple planets mitigates that risk in a major way since the likelihood of a disaster being so large that it resets technology on both/all planets is…

There aren't many catastrophes that would totally wipe out Earth but still leave offworld colonies intact. Even after a supervolcanic eruption or plague or nuclear war there'll probably still be more living humans on Earth than on Mars. And supernovas and rogue AIs can wipe out both. I like the idea of settling space because I think human lives, if they're pleasant, are intrinsically valuable and I'd like there to be…

> There aren't many catastrophes that would totally wipe out Earth but still leave offworld colonies intact. Even after a supervolcanic eruption or plague or nuclear war there'll probably still be more living humans on Earth than on Mars.

Supervolcanos, nuclear war and meteor impacts are probably the most likely of all and could be survived by offworld colonies. And while these could still leave a lot of humans on Earth, the biggest issue is that there is a big possibility for them to evolve into full blown ice ages that could potentially last for millennia which would pretty much guarantee extinction since the initial phase would most likely also destroy a large portion of infrastructure and human knowledge.

> And supernovas and rogue AIs can wipe out both.

I'm not a scientist but I think that supernovas and solar flares could maybe be detected with enough advance to possibly make sophisticated enough space colonies time their orbital movement to get in cover behind large bodies and any non-earth planetary colonies would already have to be mostly prepared for life under radiation shielding and zero atmosphere so the damage would probably be less than for everything on Earth's surface.

Rogue AIs, assuming we're the ones building them, I feel are the least of our problems although I may be wrong of course. Viruses are also a possibility but could also be largely mitigated with multiple pockets of humanity spread by enough distance.

> But in terms of of overcoming catastrophies you're better of donating to groups like Allfed or AI safety or arms control groups.

I don't agree since it shouldn't be an either-or situation. We should strive to keep our marble safe and blue for as long as possible but preemptively prepare for any of these well known existential risks.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#173

Post by airstrike » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:38 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #161

aksss wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&... EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information shar…

You're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illu…

Here's a summary of the video, posted as one of the top comments on YT: https://sundaynewsletter.com/february-video-summaries/vaclav...

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#174

Post by seph-reed » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

simonh wrote: post #163

seph-reed wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EDIT: This post is angry. I say my words more clearly below. > living a better life today than someone of your station would have lived 300 years ago > We (as human consumers) never had it so good You couldn't possibly understand how much better community and and a sense purpose is to the life we're living. The fact that we become more and more isolated, more and more lied to, more and more defeated and yet: you thin…

It’s not either/or, you can have community with or without material goods. I do have community and a sense of purpose and a satisfying life with my family around me. Many don’t, but that has always been true at all times and all places through everything we know about the history of human life. You’re writing as though misery and suffering were recent inventions of Capitalism, previously unknown to mankind. The fact…

I agree that things have gotten better over time, but how can you be so smug about it?

The amount of hoarding, infighting, and extortion has been disgusting. We're advancing as slow as species seemingly could short of completely falling apart and destroying their Earth, and even that's in question right now.

If we did things the way I'm speaking of, I guarantee you we'd have all of these things and more. Going slow and doing things right is worth it. Having value for creativity, community and labor is worth it. Not justifying oppressive decisions we couldn't have changed on the basis that we got some cheap consumer crap from it... it's worth it to me at least.

This line of thought is unpopular now, but if history is any indicator, the sentience of the future will look back on these logs and question how the fuck you could read these words and not fucking get it. We would be more advanced if we didn't do these things. Not the other way around.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#175

Post by aksss » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:39 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #161

aksss wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is zero chance of 100% replacement of fossil fuels with renewables. Zero. Without a Thanos solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&list=WL&index=5&... EDIT: I mean, you guys are downvoting these comments, and I'm sorry to tell you things you don't want to hear, but would prefer that you respond with contrary information rather than downvoting. Happy to alter my views and engage in information shar…

You're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illu…

What is wrong in what I have said?

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#176

Post by simonh » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

unFou wrote: post #168

pfdietz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illu…

I'm not sure whether nuclear is better, and renewables definitely is a good thing to have in the mix. But comparing the carbon emissions of Germany and France, and the cost of electricity in both countries would suggest that at least currently, renewables without nuclear isn't as effective for supplying our power needs as renewables with nuclear. If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.

Germany jumped the gun. They started investing heavily in renewables when they were still very costly and storage technologies weren’t practical. Things have changed a lot in the last 30 years.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#177

Post by SllX » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #71

SllX wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, well we saw something like it recently and it mostly just stranded people in Europe from what I recall. Eyjafjallajökull erupted in Iceland about 10 years ago and there wasn’t anything we could do but wait it out, and it was a lot less severe than what’s described in this article.

Although it's worth asking, did the eruption affect agricultural output in Iceland? Maybe modern farming is just resilient enough against volcanic eruptions, as it is against all the other things that used to cause famines.

That’s outside my expertise, but there’s a few good replies to your question already. My understanding is that while the eruption occurred in Iceland, the effects of it were overwhelmingly felt further south and southeast in Europe, although I’m sure there were flight delays in Iceland as a result. I’m sorry to say most of my remembrance of this event was through a few bloggers I was following at the time who were personally affected.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#178

Post by runarberg » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:42 PM UTC

SomeoneFromCA wrote: post #92

lgl wrote: post #62

The 2010 eruption of Iceland's Eyjafjallajökull [0] was a small sample of the perturbations that a volcanic event can have on day to day lives. And it was a relatively small eruption. Anything much larger than that will most likely have devastating effects on modern society on pretty much all levels and it's not really a matter of "if" but "when". Besides eruptions, many other scarier events can cause huge shifts on…

Yeah, UK kept harassing Iceland because of that mess with Icelandic banks. Then suddenly, volcano erupted, airplanes started having difficulties landing in Heathrow, and the harassment suddenly stopped.

12 Years since, and I still don’t understand why the UK went after Iceland for reparations. Landsbanki was a private bank operating in the UK, and one of the owners Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson is still doing business in the UK, and is now among the top 100 billionaires in the UK (even though he caused a 6 billion euro damage that the UK taxpayers paid).

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#179

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

unFou wrote: post #168

pfdietz wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're simply wrong, and we will continue to tell you things YOU don't want to hear. Replacing fossil fuels with renewables is altogether more practical and economical than doing so with a combination of new nuclear and renewables. This wasn't true even ten years ago, but the costs of renewables have fallen so fast that it's now the case. At the same time, the supposed "Nuclear Renaissance" was revealed to be an illu…

I'm not sure whether nuclear is better, and renewables definitely is a good thing to have in the mix. But comparing the carbon emissions of Germany and France, and the cost of electricity in both countries would suggest that at least currently, renewables without nuclear isn't as effective for supplying our power needs as renewables with nuclear. If I've misunderstood this somewhere, I would love to learn more.

You're making an invalid argument there. The current generation mix in France and Germany reflects decisions made up to decades in the past, when relative prices were very different from what they are now. Back in the 20th century when France was building reactors, renewables were much more expensive. What was the low cost option then is not what it is now.

Going forward, even France is having a very hard time building reactors, and is finding renewables are cheaper. This is one reason why France's nuclear industry is in such trouble.

Germany deliberately pushed renewables in order to send them down their experience curves. This was spectacularly successful, but it has come at a high price to their consumers, who are still paying that down. The rest of us have reaped the benefit of far lower renewable costs.

Re: 536 was ‘the worst year to be alive’ (2018)

#180

Post by simonh » Thu, Jun 18, 2020, 10:48 PM UTC

seph-reed wrote: post #174

simonh wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not either/or, you can have community with or without material goods. I do have community and a sense of purpose and a satisfying life with my family around me. Many don’t, but that has always been true at all times and all places through everything we know about the history of human life. You’re writing as though misery and suffering were recent inventions of Capitalism, previously unknown to mankind. The fact…

I agree that things have gotten better over time, but how can you be so smug about it? The amount of hoarding, infighting, and extortion has been disgusting. We're advancing as slow as species seemingly could short of completely falling apart and destroying their Earth, and even that's in question right now. If we did things the way I'm speaking of, I guarantee you we'd have all of these things and more. Going slow a…

You’re largely right, we definitely need to move sharply in a more sustainable direction. Income inequality is a growing problem. However your assertion up thread that we in general don’t benefit is incredibly naive. I think you’re conflating disagreement with that position with disagreement with a whole host of utterly unrelated issues.