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

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#31

Post by 63 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #26

The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth. You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them. Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on easy imple…

>I've tried to explain this to people, and I've been met with blank stares from even the most intelligent folks.

That's definitely an experience I've had with similar topics. I particularly remember talking to a friend who I generally respect and admire about something that isn't socially acceptable for no obvious reason, and upon explaining my thoughts and asking what the deal was with it, they completely shut down and acted like I was totally insane.

It's just particularly annoying that so many people claim to be for truth or actions based on some ultimate moral value, but then act totally differently because all they were ever really for was tradition which includes hypocrisy about what it's for.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#32

Post by calibas »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #22
calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. The planet doesn't care what lives on it or if anything lives at all. There is no best for the planet outside of goals humans set for it. > It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the Planet out of balance The planet has never been in balance. And even if we stop anthropogenic climate change something else wi…

FYI, when people are talking about helping "the Planet" they're not talking about lifeless rocks, they're talking about preserving the diversity of life on the Planet.

And by balance I mean not precipitating another extinction event. Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but we probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have to...

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#33

Post by jollybean »

newaccount74 wrote: post #5
jollybean wrote: post #3

Like discovering the ancient concept of 'Public Communications' by accidental recourse of self aware rhetoric. Every single thing we do, if the public were to have access to the raw facts, it would cause 'outrage'. The entirely of leadership is putting the difficult facts into the difficult context and making the trade offs. We 'don't talk about' the fact that we don't give medical aid to COVID patients past a certai…

I think Covid handling is an example where the public has extensive access to the raw facts; it's quite surprising just how much data is available to the public. I can get time series of covid cases, hospitalisations, vaccination rates, by area and by age... It's really surprising how much info we have.

We do, but at the same time, we can't contextualize it very well necessarily.

For example 'spikes' can mean all sorts of things. CFRs and test positivity rates have to be hugely contextualized.

We also have 'studies' about Ivermectin some of which are good, some of which ar flawed, that lack context i.e. 'study shows Ivermectin works! - if that's all they see, well, then they might be inclined to believe it.

And a huge amount of anecdotal data that is very misleading as well.

It's good the data is out there, but we also need sources to make sense of it.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#34

Post by sieabahlpark »

calibas wrote: post #7

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit ex…

> Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate that less activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet.

How do I get the food without a currency I earn at work?

Will I be given perpetually free stuff from some benevolent government? I believe I've heard that pitch before and it hasn't ever worked and never will.

This is a nonstarter and completely disregards just how the world actually works.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#35

Post by ethanbond »

haswell wrote: post #19
sushisource wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way. People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern agrarian societal model. So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is interested in solving (or, mayb…

I think it's interesting, and here's why. Think about this as it relates to other common problems humans face like debt or the need to lose weight. I can put all of my energy and focus into making more money so I can get my debt under control, but that won't matter if I have really bad spending habits. I can put all of my energy into exercising more and burning the calories I take in, but that won't matter if I'm eat…

Well I’ll take a stab at this one:

Privileged folks like those on HN will not cut back much. Folks who are already being forced to cut back will continue to do so, and with massive amounts of suffering.

Really a simple solution!

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#37

Post by sieabahlpark »

jvanderbot wrote: post #26

The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth. You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them. Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on easy imple…

You know science is inherently flawed? Making policy on kneejerk reactions to "science" is no better than being a tyrant. Especially when you consider how specific studies are funded (like oil being environmentally friendly).

A majority of studies are just outright wrong and are trying to reach for conclusions for grant money.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#38

Post by lkrubner »

jvanderbot wrote: post #26

The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth. You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them. Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on easy imple…

This is related to an issue I've studied a lot and recently written about. In "Don't make a fetish of having a flat organization" I try to address this in the context of business, making clear that a well-designed bureaucracy can empower an organization to be more flexible at scale, but for various reasons we don't often think of it this way:

https://demodexio.substack.com/p/dont-make-a-fetish-of-havin...

But perhaps more relevant, in the context of government and policy, I've tried to make the point that we should think of government and bureaucracy as machines that produce policy. Every machine is optimized to produce certain kinds of policies. If you advocate for a great policy, and you've the facts on your side, and yet no one will listen to you, then you need to think about the structure of that machine, because it will take a change in the machine to get that machine to start producing the kinds of policy that you want:

https://demodexio.substack.com/p/democracy-for-realists-part...

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#39

Post by mjlawson »

This reminds me of a set of poems, Knots, by R.D. Laing, the first of which goes:

> They are playing a game

> They are playing, at not playing a game

> If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me.

> I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.

It's a lovely collection, and though I haven't thought about it recently, I think there's a lot of value in considering these kinds of unspoken self/group contradictions.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#40

Post by SubiculumCode »

jvanderbot wrote: post #26

The underlying issue, and one that bugs the hell out of me, is Policy vs Truth. You can say true things all day, and convince nobody. You can enact policy based completely on Truth (e.g., Trust the Science), and completely fail. People don't care about Truth, they care about what changes they need to make, and who is asking them to make them. Good policy is only partially based on truth, it's more based on easy imple…

The power and foolishness of democracy lies therein. A good story is more motivating that the complicated truths of life. It is probably better for all of us to link every tornado and hurricane to climate change in a neat little story than refrain from doing so because we cannot link the particular storm on man-made climate change. The story has power to effect positive change.
Post reply on HN