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

Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#21

Post by johnwheeler »

Letmesleep69 wrote: post #20
johnwheeler wrote: post #4

Two things have always been true about human beings. One, the world is always getting better. Two, the people living at that time think it`s getting worse. Penn Jillette

I thought things always getting better is a relatively recent phenomenon. Things didn't get better for hundreds of years for the native Americans when Columbus came to America. Or after the fall of the roman empire was Europe as good the next few hundred years? Maybe there has been a general trend up but if the trend can drop drastically for the few years you're living in does the general trend up make a difference?

I think it’s meant to be figurative more than literal.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#22

Post by johnwheeler »

ABCLAW wrote: post #19
johnwheeler wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, you write this on a Computer, which wouldnt be possible without those fossil fuels that pushed us through the industrial revolution and onto the technical revolution and gave us those plastics. I think it’s crazy to assume we won’t find answers to the problems you bring up and take a sky is falling attitude when you look at the track record of human progress. Even though your friends are struggling to find jobs,…

>they’re likely living better than John D. Rockefeller did When you make absurd conclusions, you should examine your premises.

On a material basis, not absurd at all. I mean, air conditioning is pretty damn amazing as is electric power (which was non existant for much of Rockefeller’s life). The Haber process for nitrogen based fertilizer, the list goes on and on.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#23

Post by skybrian »

goalieca wrote: post #5

> So why does it feel like the world is in decline Because our environment is on the decline. Our oceans are full of plastic, our forests are converted to farmland for cattle, pollution from electronics is rising, and our global climate is changing for the worse. Even optimistic areas like health care are being confounded by obesity and malnutrition. It’s great that global health care and poverty rates are improving.…

On the other hand, by most measures, pollution in the US hit a low in the 60's and has greatly improved since then. It's even improved quite a bit since 1990 [1]. Even CO2 emissions are on the decline since 2008. (Not nearly enough, but still.)

In the Eastern US the low point for forest cover was in 1872 [2]. In the western US a major problem is too much ground cover resulting in worse forest fires. (Which is not to say that forests are healthy - the pine beetle epidemic is devastating.)

I'm not going to say things are great, but whether they're better or worse depends on where you look and what you compare against.

[1] https://gispub.epa.gov/air/trendsreport/2017/#air_pollution

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_...

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#24

Post by ABCLAW »

johnwheeler wrote: post #22
ABCLAW wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they’re likely living better than John D. Rockefeller did When you make absurd conclusions, you should examine your premises.

On a material basis, not absurd at all. I mean, air conditioning is pretty damn amazing as is electric power (which was non existant for much of Rockefeller’s life). The Haber process for nitrogen based fertilizer, the list goes on and on.

It is absurd. Obscenely absurd.

Rockefeller could literally pay an army of people to fan him with palm leaves, make sorbet from the ol' ice house and make him fresh iced tea as he walked around town if he wanted.

What the fuck does Rockefeller care if the carrying capacity of agricultural land increases due to the Haber process if his personal consumption would remain the five-star best-in-class ingredients for every meal he ever has if he so chooses. He doesn't care about the mean's position. He is the tail.

The existence of air conditioning and the Haber process doesn't make the life of the working poor better than his.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#25

Post by johnwheeler »

ABCLAW wrote: post #24
johnwheeler wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a material basis, not absurd at all. I mean, air conditioning is pretty damn amazing as is electric power (which was non existant for much of Rockefeller’s life). The Haber process for nitrogen based fertilizer, the list goes on and on.

It is absurd. Obscenely absurd. Rockefeller could literally pay an army of people to fan him with palm leaves, make sorbet from the ol' ice house and make him fresh iced tea as he walked around town if he wanted. What the fuck does Rockefeller care if the carrying capacity of agricultural land increases due to the Haber process if his personal consumption would remain the five-star best-in-class ingredients for every…

hyperbole and nonsense

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#26

Post by ABCLAW »

johnwheeler wrote: post #25
ABCLAW wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absurd. Obscenely absurd. Rockefeller could literally pay an army of people to fan him with palm leaves, make sorbet from the ol' ice house and make him fresh iced tea as he walked around town if he wanted. What the fuck does Rockefeller care if the carrying capacity of agricultural land increases due to the Haber process if his personal consumption would remain the five-star best-in-class ingredients for every…

hyperbole and nonsense

Vacuous and Naive.

Sorry, for that, but is throwing insults really how discussion is supposed to be done?

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#27

Post by charlesism »

johnwheeler wrote: post #21
Letmesleep69 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought things always getting better is a relatively recent phenomenon. Things didn't get better for hundreds of years for the native Americans when Columbus came to America. Or after the fall of the roman empire was Europe as good the next few hundred years? Maybe there has been a general trend up but if the trend can drop drastically for the few years you're living in does the general trend up make a difference?

I think it’s meant to be figurative more than literal.

Is that a euphemism for "I think it’s wrong"?

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#28

Post by chickenfries »

johnwheeler wrote: post #16
chickenfries wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really like to see you say that with a straight face to someone stuck in a minimum wage jobs who can’t afford healthcare. Seriously. This optimism about the long term does nothing for someone who is suffering in the short and medium term. That comparison to Rockafeller is nonsense. Go ask someone working at McDonald’s if they’d trade places with one of the richest men ever.

Health insurance, minimum wages, fast food even... This is but a sampling of the human progress I mentioned parsed out of a single misguided post you made. There are people in the world far worse off than your friend making minimum wage. You take these things for granted because you live in a rich enough society that enables you to do so.

You really assume too much about me. I'm one generation removed from 3rd world farmers.

You're convinced that anyone who has a problem with their standard of living in America has no perspective, when really you're the one who can't see the perspective of the lower class of someone living in one of the richest countries in the world. Seriously, you're making these arguments on the internet, on a forum where everyone is presumed to be working in technology and therefore not starving, how about you go volunteer at a shelter in your city like I do and tell those people "cheer up! I bet you wouldn't want to switch places with John Rockefeller!"

I know you won't though.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#29

Post by chickenfries »

johnwheeler wrote: post #25
ABCLAW wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absurd. Obscenely absurd. Rockefeller could literally pay an army of people to fan him with palm leaves, make sorbet from the ol' ice house and make him fresh iced tea as he walked around town if he wanted. What the fuck does Rockefeller care if the carrying capacity of agricultural land increases due to the Haber process if his personal consumption would remain the five-star best-in-class ingredients for every…

hyperbole and nonsense

You're really not interested in defending your ideas to anyone who doesn't immediate agree with your absurd conclusion that everyone should want to trade places with John Rockefeller.

Re: Bill Gates: Why I Decided to Edit an Issue of TIME

#30

Post by chickenfries »

johnwheeler wrote: post #21
Letmesleep69 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought things always getting better is a relatively recent phenomenon. Things didn't get better for hundreds of years for the native Americans when Columbus came to America. Or after the fall of the roman empire was Europe as good the next few hundred years? Maybe there has been a general trend up but if the trend can drop drastically for the few years you're living in does the general trend up make a difference?

I think it’s meant to be figurative more than literal.

You won't even defend the quote you posted from it's most obvious criticism?
Post reply on HN