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

The future our grandchildren deserve

gatesnotes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 128 posts

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#41

Post by jeffbee »

programmarchy wrote: post #11

Improvements upon math education, ultrasound technology, and construction technology all sound like very reasonable, practical goals. Perhaps the most radical goal is gene therapy, but also the most exciting and sci-fi.

> construction technology

Isn't it a bit odd to present a chart that shows buildings to be the least-important component of the problem, and then go on to talk about only that small component? Especially saying "Buildings are a surprisingly large source of emissions" when the graphic just above that sentence shows that buildings are not.

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#42

Post by SuoDuanDao »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #33

Money is only a proxy for power, because it is easier to measure and is fungible. But talking about inequalities, especially related to political systems and redistribution, we should be taking a closer look at power because this is, always, ultimately, the real thing. Money can be kind of boring when you have too much of it, power has a longer lasting appeal, and for some people, the appetite is bottomless. I tend t…

>contrary to wealth, power is a zero sum game

Not sure I agree. Power over other people maybe, but there is also power to affect the nonhuman environment. A modern farmer's power to alter his immediate environment is similar to a feudal lord's.

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#43

Post by tmtvl »

ctoth wrote: post #27
mc32 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Endless growth is not attainable on this Earth. Japan hit the inflection point some decades ago. They are doing alright. They still innovate. In some respects it's stagnant, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It does mean that offspring will not perpetually think "they will (potentially) earn more than their parents" and that's okay. We need to accelerate this in places that are still growing, slow them down but…

It is an excellent thing, then, that we are not simply stuck on this Earth.

For practical purposes we are. At least for the foreseeable future. Yes, we can support a handful of people on a space station for a few months, but that's no long-term solution.

Unless you mean we could simply run like Logan, which, while indeed a possible solution, is not a particularly attractive solution.

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#44

Post by slothtrop »

mc32 wrote: post #32
slothtrop wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first paragraph is all you need. Instances of consumerism that are a problem can be dampened through tax or other means, but it's a moot point because environmental encroachment scales with demand. If demand is stagnant (because the population is, and has already been lifted out of poverty enough to demand things), then there's no question of sustainability for basically anything, except certain finite resources.…

Even if we got the world pop to 1960s levels we cannot indefinitely consume and defile the environment. We need to exercise restraint despite our capacity or ability to do things.

People don't have an infinite capacity for consumption. That's why 1st world countries use immigration policy to boost the GDP (a reflection of consumption).

Between gains in efficiency, renewables, etc the "need for restraint" has a ton of legroom if the population simply does not grow. The rise in emissions from the last couple of decades is largely owing to growing demand from China and other countries with an emerging middle class. Vaclav Smil makes this clear in a few of his books (e.g. How The World Really Works), you don't need to rely on conjecture if you just look at the numbers. Since it would be inhumane to demand that the 3rd world not make use of fossil fuels to improve their quality of life (including for instance ammonia for fertilizer), we can expect demand to continue growing.

There's no reason to believe that, assuming a stable population, we would be relegated to conditions of asceticism in order to keep the planet habitable.

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#45

Post by potatochup »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #40
mc32 wrote: post #2

Provide education, jobs and contraceptives to those with high reproduction rates —pop growth will slow thus putting less pressure on the environment (see China vs India). Less encroachment on nature, less sequestered carbon released. Help to modernize poor countries' energy grids and electrify the hinterlands. Get people in rich countries to give up cheap disposable stuff and give up energy consuming entertainment (i…

> Provide [...] contraceptives to those with high reproduction rates This we should not do. First, Malthusians have always been wrong and I claim will continue to be wrong. Second, contraception encourages declining birth rates and low birth rates are destructive to societies. Third, contraception is intrinsically immoral because it frustrates and perverts the function of the sexual faculties (it's the analogue of bu…

> Fourth, contraception has the psychological effect of divorcing the intrinsic function of sexual intercourse from pleasure which results in a hedonistic view of sex

There is so much more to sex than procreation or pure hedonistic desire.

What about infertile couples? Should they just not have sex because there is no hope of procreation? Gay couples?

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#46

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

tmtvl wrote: post #43
ctoth wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an excellent thing, then, that we are not simply stuck on this Earth.

For practical purposes we are. At least for the foreseeable future. Yes, we can support a handful of people on a space station for a few months, but that's no long-term solution. Unless you mean we could simply run like Logan, which, while indeed a possible solution, is not a particularly attractive solution.

I will admit that I think Bill Burr put the issue of overpopulation in mainstream consciousness and I can't deny that I worry that the solutions ( or forced by circumstances -- war comes to mind ) proposed are unlikely to be pleasant for the globe as a whole.

Still, in parent's defense, I am not seeing that stance in my interpretation of that post.

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#47

Post by itishappy »

jeffbee wrote: post #41
programmarchy wrote: post #11

Improvements upon math education, ultrasound technology, and construction technology all sound like very reasonable, practical goals. Perhaps the most radical goal is gene therapy, but also the most exciting and sci-fi.

> construction technology Isn't it a bit odd to present a chart that shows buildings to be the least-important component of the problem, and then go on to talk about only that small component? Especially saying "Buildings are a surprisingly large source of emissions" when the graphic just above that sentence shows that buildings are not.

The previous 12 paragraphs of the building section were dedicated to addressing exactly that. He speaks about the work being done in the agriculture and energy sectors.

"Surprisingly large" does not imply it's the largest.

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#48

Post by aschearer »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #16

Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for charities?

> I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised.

What does that even mean? Be explicit. Right now I'm left to assume you think he's implanting 5G chips in children...

More to the point, barring huge changes in this country, what else can we expect of the ultra rich? What Gates is doing is nearly best case scenario...

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#49

Post by stephc_int13 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #42
stephc_int13 wrote: post #33

Money is only a proxy for power, because it is easier to measure and is fungible. But talking about inequalities, especially related to political systems and redistribution, we should be taking a closer look at power because this is, always, ultimately, the real thing. Money can be kind of boring when you have too much of it, power has a longer lasting appeal, and for some people, the appetite is bottomless. I tend t…

>contrary to wealth, power is a zero sum game Not sure I agree. Power over other people maybe, but there is also power to affect the nonhuman environment. A modern farmer's power to alter his immediate environment is similar to a feudal lord's.

This is semantic counter-argument.

I agree that Power, as a word, is a bit vague.

And to some extent I also agree that power tends to not be self-limiting to other humans, we tend to use it over animals and nature.

Re: The future our grandchildren deserve

#50

Post by stephc_int13 »

gabcoh wrote: post #39
stephc_int13 wrote: post #16

Am I the only one growing suspicious of this since the SBF/FTX effective altruism turned out to be a front to masquerade a good old Ponzi? I don't think the Gates foundation is a Ponzi, but I am not entirely convinced that all of this is really what is advertised. Are there any reliable (external and independent) audits for charities?

Do you mean to say both FTX and effective altruism are Ponzi schemes? Obviously SBF and FTX turned out to be a huge fraud, but while EA benefited from the fraud mostly unknowingly (although there are open questions as to whether they should have been more skeptical of SBF) I don’t think it’s fair to say that it is fraudulent itself (at least as far as we currently know). EA is big and while you may disagree with thei…

Have you heard about Wytham Abbey?

The rationalization they used to justify this is probably the same pattern they use for everything.

Why should I believe them?

Facts are more reliable than words.

Post reply on HN