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

The world has probably passed peak pollution

sustainabilitybynumbers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 383 posts

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#281

Post by akira2501 »

illiac786 wrote: post #120

I find this title highly misleading “peak emission” would be much more accurate. “Peak pollution” sounds like the amount of pollution in the environment will actually _decrease_ going forward. That is simply not true, it will continue to increase, just slightly less fast. Sorry if I don’t feel euphoric right now.

> will actually _decrease_ going forward.

The ratio of (pollution/living person) will decrease. Unless you want to start unaliving people then this is a fixed fact of the world we live on.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#282

Post by silverquiet »

harimau777 wrote: post #96
silverquiet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the future is agrarian, extremely-religious people living a very low-productivity lifestyle of essentially subsistence farming, then that’s probably actually a nice balance for the Earth and humanity. However it really doesn’t feel like that’s where things are headed in spite of the current demographic trends you note. In a sense, I think that’s the way the Americas were before Columbus re-united them with the old…

Have you lived in that sort of society? It's not great for humanity.

I don't know about great for humanity, but sustainable probably. I sit behind a keyboard for a living; while I might harbor some romantic notions about a pastoral life, deep down I know I'm not cut out for it. And the heat index where I live now gets into the one-teens every summer so I really don't think I'm cut out for it.

Also, I'm not one to complain about downvotes - I can take my knocks, but I'm a bit surprised that my comment is rather disliked; it's just my thought at that moment.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#283

Post by NewJazz »

tsimionescu wrote: post #264
NewJazz wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the concept of pollution highly subjective?

It's really not, for most things. What exactly would you call an oil spill or leaded gas fumes if not pollution?

Certain substances are certainly clear cut.

But consider, I dunno, salt? A little built of salt in the environment is normal. But a whole lot of it is pollution.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#284

Post by unnouinceput »

iamthemonster wrote: post #110
unnouinceput wrote: post #93

2B humans out of 8B are in China. You do not have numbers for China nor, if you manage to get it, can those be trusted anyway. I feel that while the West started the downtrend, China will not offset that but surely pass as how much pollutants it spews. We are not out of the woods until China gets on board too.

I think I trust the numbers for China more than your estimate of China's population which is out by 43%

If you really think the official numbers spilled by the communist party from there is the truth then I have a bridge to sell to you.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#287

Post by BurningFrog »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #274
BurningFrog wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big dividing line is between those who think people are a burden vs those who think they're an asset. I've grown convinced people are overwhelmingly an asset. In a rough sense that means they/we produce more value than they consume on average. I think debates about population size are mostly really about this difference.

The key phrase in your problem statement is "more value", which assumes that all value can be projected onto a single axis. Typically [1], this means that you can assign a dollar value to any change in the physical world [2]. The "debate" for many people is whether this simplistic economic model can be used at all. They say that value is multi-dimensional, and those value dimensions are not fungible. Concretely, if m…

[1] is right.

This argues against something I didn't say and don't believe.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#288

Post by ceejayoz »

NewJazz wrote: post #283
tsimionescu wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not, for most things. What exactly would you call an oil spill or leaded gas fumes if not pollution?

Certain substances are certainly clear cut. But consider, I dunno, salt? A little built of salt in the environment is normal. But a whole lot of it is pollution.

That's more a quibble over dosage, though, than any subjective disagreement on "can too much salt be a pollutant?"

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#289

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #204
vouaobrasil wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell that to the people in Mato Gross do Sul now who don't even have running water now because of the extreme weather events caused by technology. Just an anecdote, I guess.

It's cold and harsh, but yes that's just an anecdote. What do you mean extreme weather caused by technology?

Internal combustion engines

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#290

Post by crent »

NewJazz wrote: post #283
tsimionescu wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not, for most things. What exactly would you call an oil spill or leaded gas fumes if not pollution?

Certain substances are certainly clear cut. But consider, I dunno, salt? A little built of salt in the environment is normal. But a whole lot of it is pollution.

I’m no climate scientist but I would think it’s similar to toxicity/poisoning. You can die from water intoxication but certainly you need it to live as well. So no, I don’t think it’s subjective. It seems to me that if something is capable of causing harm in a certain amount, it’s poisonous/pollution/toxic.
Post reply on HN