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

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

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 365 posts

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

#231

Post by Camas »

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…

Nothing intrinsically valuable about human life except from the fact that we're good at surviving when other similar life wouldn't. Expanding into space will be an extension of that.

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

#232

Post by sizzle »

Nasrudith wrote: post #119
yummypaint wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a good reason to leave fossil fuels in the ground and not just extract them as quickly as possible wherever we find them. It seems conceivable that we could eventually find ourselves thermodynamically unable to recover after a catastrophy like a big solar flare. Unfortunately there is no way for anyone to make money by being responsible in this way. We are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund a…

I am not too certain of the logic of the arguement - namely because fossil fuels are actually pretty damn advanced in terms of "actual technology and societal infastructure to access and exploit them". We already went through this long ago with surface deposits of copper ore as well essentially millenia ago. Effectively the time when it is useful is "when we don't have cheaper alternatives yet". We still should striv…

What are the consequences of fracking?

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

#233

Post by api »

Nasrudith wrote: post #119
yummypaint wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a good reason to leave fossil fuels in the ground and not just extract them as quickly as possible wherever we find them. It seems conceivable that we could eventually find ourselves thermodynamically unable to recover after a catastrophy like a big solar flare. Unfortunately there is no way for anyone to make money by being responsible in this way. We are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund a…

I am not too certain of the logic of the arguement - namely because fossil fuels are actually pretty damn advanced in terms of "actual technology and societal infastructure to access and exploit them". We already went through this long ago with surface deposits of copper ore as well essentially millenia ago. Effectively the time when it is useful is "when we don't have cheaper alternatives yet". We still should striv…

Yet another possible Fermi paradox answer...

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

#234

Post by frosted-flakes »

usrusr wrote: post #120
AnssiH wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I go to the store and still routinely see empty shelves where TP should be; Huh, so that is why Google Maps keeps asking me whether TP was in stock every time I go the store - I did not realize there were still actual shortages on that elsewhere, I thought it was just a couple of days of panicing in March and that Google was just being weird / behind the times. FWIW, I haven't noticed such disruptions here (Finland…

Well, a country of 5.5 million where two of the three biggest paper manufacturers are based, if the TP situation was worse we would all envy you as the land of the chosen.

Funnily enough, it's very common in Finland to have hand-held sprayers beside the toilets, even in public washrooms. It's not like America, where it's either toilet paper, or hop in the shower.

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

#235

Post by mark-r »

Nasrudith wrote: post #119
yummypaint wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a good reason to leave fossil fuels in the ground and not just extract them as quickly as possible wherever we find them. It seems conceivable that we could eventually find ourselves thermodynamically unable to recover after a catastrophy like a big solar flare. Unfortunately there is no way for anyone to make money by being responsible in this way. We are effectively draining our planetary rainy day fund a…

I am not too certain of the logic of the arguement - namely because fossil fuels are actually pretty damn advanced in terms of "actual technology and societal infastructure to access and exploit them". We already went through this long ago with surface deposits of copper ore as well essentially millenia ago. Effectively the time when it is useful is "when we don't have cheaper alternatives yet". We still should striv…

Good luck with those "renewable" solar farms when the next eruption happens.

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

#236

Post by asveikau »

nemo44x wrote: post #181
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…

What if one believes life in general is more or less meaningless and that the “better” feeling you get from community is nothing more than various chemical releases that can be triggered just the same as consuming as many resources as I can while I’m here? Why seek the good feelings by relying on a community that you have no control over than pick your favorite things to consume? Why have people that lived within the…

Any other action is just going release the chemicals in slightly different but similar ways. So using your logic, why is being a selfish hedonist going to be better than the first option? You have just given a somewhat nihilistic argument that neither outcome matters.

Meanwhile, have you tried both ways? My personal experience suggests that acting benevolently to others is much less stressful, makes one much happier, and that leads to better physical health even. Compared with being a bitter curmudgeon on the other extreme, you will likely be happier and live longer. It's a much better way to release the chemicals.

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

#237

Post by jessaustin »

pmiller2 wrote: post #80
Cerium wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One angle on the TP problem is that we didn't just have a shock, we had a shock and then lasting change in demand. I saw an article that says demand for residential sized TP rolls is up 40% because a lot of bathroom visits are happening in homes that used to happen in work places.

I know that, but the point remains that the supply chain has not “recovered” in any meaningful sense. Capitalism, in fact, guarantees it will not (too expensive to switch production from commercial to residential TP). We’re going to be seeing this phenomenon until people can go back to work.

One's rear will be cleaner if one uses water to wash it, like a normal human.

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

#238

Post by eloff »

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…

I'm with you on the dangers of all these things, but I'm going to disagree that they're civilization reset events - although they could spark one.

A massive global famine could kill a billion humans or more. But if the 1 in 10 of us (likely the poorest, most vulnerable people) died, would civilization end? I don't think so.

However, if that leads to all out nuclear war, then we have two enormous correlated shocks to the system. Maybe even that wouldn't be enough, but some number of such shocks could push us over the brink.

Just like an economic meltdown or a plane crash, it's never one thing that goes wrong, it's a sequence of failures.

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

#240

Post by g8oz »

simonh wrote: post #176
unFou wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s been argued that their “premature” investment primed the pump for renewables globally.
Post reply on HN