The world has probably passed peak pollution • Hacker News Board

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#291

Post by ithkuil » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:00 PM UTC

crent wrote: post #290

NewJazz wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, the dangers of Dihydrogen monoxide are well known yet underestimated

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#292

Post by dissuade » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:04 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #281

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.

[flagged]

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#293

Post by bamboozled » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:06 PM UTC

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #156

defrost wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Peak Coal - Probably, very likely, more or less about right now. Global coal supply likely peaked in 2023 and then to decline https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38652273 Can't say for sure until another few years have passed, nonetheless every country in the world has coal on hold or in decline save for India and China. China is the largest producer of renewable technology and energy (?), India is building out the…

China still builds more coal power, but they intend to use it only as a backup for when renewables are not producing enough. The YouTube channel Just Have a Think did a video on China's energy future recently, highly recommend checking it out (sorry for not linking directly, writing on my phone).

Doesn’t it take a while to bring a coal station up to energy producing capacity ? Isn’t they why gas is more popular for this ?

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#294

Post by goatlover » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:07 PM UTC

rqtwteye wrote: post #78

iiovemiku wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, seeing peak baby is a little scary honestly. I had always thought that low birth rates were a problem for only countries like Germany, Spain, Japan, etc. (at least for the time being). Seeing countries like India even out (and even going under replacement rate) gives me some heavy pessimism about population graying. I had always thought that heavy swingers like them would carry on the whole growing population th…

At some point we can’t rely on ever growing populations. It may be painful for a while but at some point growth has to stop.

I've seen estimates on Earth's carrying capacity range form less than a billion to a trillion, all just depending on what you think technology and science can do in the future (think massive arcologies, super efficent AIs, giant space solar panels, and advanced molecular nanotech), and how resilient nature is.

What can be said with confidence is that the Earth currently grows enough food to support 10 billion people, when some people back in the 60s and 70s predicted massive starvation and shortages would have happened long before that.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#295

Post by akira2501 » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:07 PM UTC

dissuade wrote: post #292

akira2501 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

Yes, we should change the units to have a more rational approach, that doesn't boil down to a new version of first world colonialism that tells the undeveloped world they missed the boat and now can't catch up because we've already wrecked the environment on their behalf.

So, if you want to care about the environment, and the state of the developed world, you're going to need to allow for compromise to exist. If you refuse this compromise, yes, you are incidentally approaching the same outcome the eugenicists want.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#296

Post by dissuade » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:08 PM UTC

NewJazz wrote: post #258

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.

Isn't the concept of pollution highly subjective?

[flagged]

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#297

Post by rcxdude » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:10 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #270

jandrese wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of panic over shrinking population where people project it out 1000 years and find there are only like 5 people left in the world. Steady state population should be the long term goal, at least until we start moving into orbital colonies or something. But unfortunately that's an anathema to growth oriented economies which makes it the bad guy in economics and politics.

At fertility rates of 1.6, it takes just 25 generations for the global population to go from 8 billion to 900k. Just 10 generations for the global population to drop below 1 billion. Pretty scary stuff.

assuming fertility rates stay constant, which they rarely have. 250 years is a lot of time for things to change. (and of course there's no need for fertility rates to grow to as high as they have been historically, due to the massive drop in child mortality).

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#298

Post by yoyohello13 » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:14 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #280

yoyohello13 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny when men talk about having as many kids as possible when they take on 0% of the health risk, have no expectation of quitting their job, and statistically have a low chance of becoming a single parent. Seeing it from the side of a Woman, it's no wonder birth rates are declining.

It definitely makes the policy predictions for how countries are going to deal with this much bleaker. Many countries have tried the carrot for years now. Get ready for them to start using the stick.

If we start forcing women to carry children against their will maybe our civilization doesn't deserve to survive.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#299

Post by jandrese » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:23 PM UTC

missedthecue wrote: post #270

jandrese wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of panic over shrinking population where people project it out 1000 years and find there are only like 5 people left in the world. Steady state population should be the long term goal, at least until we start moving into orbital colonies or something. But unfortunately that's an anathema to growth oriented economies which makes it the bad guy in economics and politics.

At fertility rates of 1.6, it takes just 25 generations for the global population to go from 8 billion to 900k. Just 10 generations for the global population to drop below 1 billion. Pretty scary stuff.

This is exactly my point. People assume that human behavior won't change if the population starts shrinking noticeably, especially if that shrinkage results in reduced housing pressures.

Re: The world has probably passed peak pollution

#300

Post by jajko » Fri, May 10, 2024, 9:23 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #295

dissuade wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes, we should change the units to have a more rational approach, that doesn't boil down to a new version of first world colonialism that tells the undeveloped world they missed the boat and now can't catch up because we've already wrecked the environment on their behalf. So, if you want to care about the environment, and the state of the developed world, you're going to need to allow for compromise to exist. If you…

There is 1 single earth, its not getting bigger nor smaller. Dont know about you but I couldnt care less about some pollution per capita or similar. What about pollution per km2, or m3 of water? Nobody is stating goal is 0 or we failed.

Not sure why you try to divert discussion that way, its too obvious and not working.