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

41–50 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#41

Post by calibas »

slg wrote: post #17
calibas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be the standard response, I've certainly heard it before, but all I'm suggesting is doing less. I'm not a luddite, I'm not arguing for a "pre-modern agrarian societal model", I'm arguing for a post-modern agrarian society that balances technology, industry and the ecosystem. We consume enormously more than we need, and far more than the Planet can handle. I feel like the one of the few sane people when…

Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of the few sane people because you are of course technically right. However no one will listen to you because "even if that’s true, there’s no profit in thinking about it" as it is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There is no way to get…

>You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone".

Really? I'm of the opinion that doing less, working less, and doing things like having your own garden would lead to much greater health and happiness for the average person. The only way I can see "no advantage" is when viewed through the lens of modern capitalism, then my suggestions are certainly blasphemous.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#42

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#43

Post by mikewarot »

crmd wrote: post #6

They lost me at the dangers of ultrasonic humidifiers.

If you put tap water in an ultrasonic humidifier, there actually is a level of danger created.

Here's what appears to be a fair and balanced google search result - https://www.childrenscolorado.org/conditions-and-advice/pare...

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#44

Post by slg »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #23
slg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of the few sane people because you are of course technically right. However no one will listen to you because "even if that’s true, there’s no profit in thinking about it" as it is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There is no way to get…

Some part of modern consumption however is not really making lives any more enjoyable at all, for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people wou…

>to fill some internal void for people for a short while.

You just answered your own point there. It makes people happy. Maybe that feeling is fleeting, but it is still a good feeling that people will not give up voluntarily unless there are no other options.

>If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people would start buying more sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it more sensible for them individually.

I don't disagree, but a carbon tax is in the expensive and painful bucket above not the cheap and easy one. It makes the low quality goods more expensive so people consume less of them. That is not people voluntarily giving up those good for the benefit of the planet.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#45

Post by rkk3 »

not2b wrote: post #10
crmd wrote: post #6

They lost me at the dangers of ultrasonic humidifiers.

I think you misinterpreted that part. It's talking about how cults who believe in weird stuff grow, despite there being no real danger of ultrasonic humidifiers or whatever.

There is a non-zero risk of aerosolizing bacteria/mold etc if you don't maintain an ultra-sonic humidifier properly, which doesn't exist with other methods. Of course with a boiling humidifier, you've got a container of scalding hot water laying around.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#46

Post by haswell »

ethanbond wrote: post #35
haswell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

This is rather pessimistic, trivializes the argument and assumes that it’s directed only at individuals.

Doing less doesn’t have to mean it’s only an individual’s responsibility. Applying this more broadly, doing less is a category of potential solutions to much bigger problems.

Relying on individuals will never move the needle very far.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#47

Post by ethanbond »

haswell wrote: post #46
ethanbond wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

This is rather pessimistic, trivializes the argument and assumes that it’s directed only at individuals. Doing less doesn’t have to mean it’s only an individual’s responsibility. Applying this more broadly, doing less is a category of potential solutions to much bigger problems. Relying on individuals will never move the needle very far.

This is the opposite of assuming it’s directed only at individuals. I’m saying we are already doing this, systematically, at massive scale. What it looks like is people fleeing particular regions, turned from farmer or industrial worker to… “doing less.” It looks like mass migration and failed states. This happens either because the economics cease to make sense (the sort of levers any systematic solution would have available), or ecological facts require it (the sort of solution that will be forced upon us in lieu of action).

In either case, it’s clear that the “doing less” approaches are bound to start with the people who are already doing the least.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#49

Post by Supermancho »

63 wrote: post #28
bradhe wrote: post #15

man that was painful to read

Can you expand on that? There were definitely some parts I didn't understand or agree with, but the main idea seemed interesting.

In some cases it tried to make observations in an objective or granular way, while at the same time mixing in sweeping generalizations and hand waving,

> You’re in love.

> Critically, you get everyone to agree that it’s gauche to discuss the strategic logic of all this.

I'm thinking no. Lots of people talk about the expense of marriage. Some go so far as to say "it's just a piece of paper". Everyone doesn't agree there is strategic loss or that "you're in love" is a singular recognizable concept to justifies anything in particular.

> You secretly guess that the group is sustained by a minority of true believers who make up critical mass for a larger group of people you, but you never talk about this and neither does anyone else.

Nobody talks about this except every atheist from high school forward. Rather than have a nuanced or an informed insightful analysis we get these short statements that both seemed lazy and misrepresenting a supposed underlying zeitgeist.

etc

It's like reading an antivax manifesto.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#50

Post by rpdillon »

calibas wrote: post #41
slg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of the few sane people because you are of course technically right. However no one will listen to you because "even if that’s true, there’s no profit in thinking about it" as it is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There is no way to get…

>You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". Really? I'm of the opinion that doing less, working less, and doing things like having your own garden would lead to much greater health and happiness for the average person. The only way I can see "no advantage" is when viewed through the lens of modern capitalism, then my suggestions are certainly blasphemous.

It's not they're blasphemous, it's that there's no clear way to incentivize a critical mass to change their behavior. Put another way: the destination is clear enough, but how to get there isn't. Reminds me a bit of nuclear disarmament.
Post reply on HN