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

The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

terebess.hu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#41

Post by CapstanRoller »

kylebenzle wrote: post #31
tehjoker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it didn't used to be, but now it is. the magic of growth and interconnection

Yes, the connecting thread is the USD hegemony. Hyperinflation and eventual collapse is not only possible but has been inevitable ever since QE started. The stock market is now a farce and price is dictated by market makers, not "discovered". The housing market is nonsensical and has priced a generation out of home ownership. The US military is evil incarnate and our civil court system is based on whoever has the mos…

>I'm doing everything I can to speed the collapse of a broken system and I'm sure there are many more like me.

You and the people you care about will, of course, be totally unaffected and simply observe the suffering of Those Other People Who Don't Matter from a distance, then step out of your bunker into the newly rejuvenated world and begin enjoying life?

Wake up! YOU ARE ALSO INSIDE THIS MACHINE, ALONG WITH EVERYONE YOU KNOW AND LOVE.

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#42

Post by adrianN »

vlovich123 wrote: post #30
jes5199 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

combination of two things; first, we came up with new ways to get oil out of the ground, so it extended the deadline considerably. second, economic growth and oil burning decoupled, so instead of needing more and more oil we hit a steady number. hopefully, we transition off it soon. but we’re no longer thought likely to run out, even if we don’t

I don’t see a viable plan to transition for plastics, so I suspect that oil consumption will remain substantial until plastics get enough expensive that we find viable alternatives. Conversely I don’t think we’re actually in danger of transitioning off of oil consumption in any real way in the next 20 years.

Plastic can be made from hydrogen and carbon. Plastic is a minuscule fraction of our oil consumption. Maybe the oil-free synthesis path becomes economically attractive once we stop burning oil for energy and plastic feedstock is no longer a mostly free byproduct of that.

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#43

Post by namaria »

jes5199 wrote: post #15

I am hoping that the modern world is not one single system that can crash all at once, but is rather many systems, such that a crash leaves room for new things to grow bigger

It's both. That's the nature of systems. You can loose a lot of muscle mass and survive, but very little brain tissue. Civilization could survive large chunks collapsing but would likely hit a wall if key cities and people were to be eliminated at once.

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#44

Post by Alpha3031 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #30
jes5199 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

combination of two things; first, we came up with new ways to get oil out of the ground, so it extended the deadline considerably. second, economic growth and oil burning decoupled, so instead of needing more and more oil we hit a steady number. hopefully, we transition off it soon. but we’re no longer thought likely to run out, even if we don’t

I don’t see a viable plan to transition for plastics, so I suspect that oil consumption will remain substantial until plastics get enough expensive that we find viable alternatives. Conversely I don’t think we’re actually in danger of transitioning off of oil consumption in any real way in the next 20 years.

Petrochemical use is currently what, about 20% of total crude oil use? Yeah we'll probably need to start at least trying to tackle that soon even if the CO2 in the atmosphere thing is more urgent, but there's no pressing need to be a viable plan for 100% reduction now if we won't even think about using it for probably a decade at least. We've got the time to move forward one small step at a time and then verify each step so it isn't like plastic recycling ("Oh yeah we'll totally do it" *dumps in lower income country*) and measurable goals on shorter timeframes (say, 30% reduction by 2030) are much more achievable and effective than a vague long term goal of not using any more oil ever, not even a little bit. There's no shame in picking the low hanging fruit first.

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#45

Post by namaria »

kylebenzle wrote: post #31
tehjoker wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it didn't used to be, but now it is. the magic of growth and interconnection

Yes, the connecting thread is the USD hegemony. Hyperinflation and eventual collapse is not only possible but has been inevitable ever since QE started. The stock market is now a farce and price is dictated by market makers, not "discovered". The housing market is nonsensical and has priced a generation out of home ownership. The US military is evil incarnate and our civil court system is based on whoever has the mos…

Every complex adaptive systems exists teetering on the edge of collapse. Doomsayers are not insightful, they are just near sighted.

And accelerationism is an incredibly pretentious stance. People actually think they have understood perfectly what civilization is and what it ought to become. That is a colossal claim.

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#46

Post by namaria »

CapstanRoller wrote: post #41
kylebenzle wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the connecting thread is the USD hegemony. Hyperinflation and eventual collapse is not only possible but has been inevitable ever since QE started. The stock market is now a farce and price is dictated by market makers, not "discovered". The housing market is nonsensical and has priced a generation out of home ownership. The US military is evil incarnate and our civil court system is based on whoever has the mos…

>I'm doing everything I can to speed the collapse of a broken system and I'm sure there are many more like me. You and the people you care about will, of course, be totally unaffected and simply observe the suffering of Those Other People Who Don't Matter from a distance, then step out of your bunker into the newly rejuvenated world and begin enjoying life? Wake up! YOU ARE ALSO INSIDE THIS MACHINE, ALONG WITH EVERYO…

Accelerationists and preppers are merely engaging in self soothing behavior to mitigate their discomfort stemming from a lack of understanding and control over the world.

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#47

Post by vlovich123 »

adrianN wrote: post #42
vlovich123 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see a viable plan to transition for plastics, so I suspect that oil consumption will remain substantial until plastics get enough expensive that we find viable alternatives. Conversely I don’t think we’re actually in danger of transitioning off of oil consumption in any real way in the next 20 years.

Plastic can be made from hydrogen and carbon. Plastic is a minuscule fraction of our oil consumption. Maybe the oil-free synthesis path becomes economically attractive once we stop burning oil for energy and plastic feedstock is no longer a mostly free byproduct of that.

https://www.statista.com/topics/8418/petrochemical-industry-...

16% of world oil consumption is not nothing. AFAIK we don’t have good replacements and cost isn’t the only reason. And even if it is, think about how pervasive petrchochemical plastics are - it seems unlikely we’d go back so even if we switched to more expensive replacements, that means the price of a lot of stuff is going to go up by a lot…

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#48

Post by jeffvader »

anonporridge wrote: post #9
deathhand wrote: post #6

It's also just like any 4x strategy game. You can harvest resources and build and build but once those resources are depleted they deplete very fast because you have grown capacity for intake. I'm glad we aren't worried about peak oil anymore but the climate and food scarity is going to be the next pitfall to avoid.

When I look at this chart, I'm still pretty worried about peak fossil fuel happening too soon. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio...

"we'll found more soon"

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#49

Post by ggm »

vlovich123 wrote: post #30
jes5199 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

combination of two things; first, we came up with new ways to get oil out of the ground, so it extended the deadline considerably. second, economic growth and oil burning decoupled, so instead of needing more and more oil we hit a steady number. hopefully, we transition off it soon. but we’re no longer thought likely to run out, even if we don’t

I don’t see a viable plan to transition for plastics, so I suspect that oil consumption will remain substantial until plastics get enough expensive that we find viable alternatives. Conversely I don’t think we’re actually in danger of transitioning off of oil consumption in any real way in the next 20 years.

Plastics have many substitution options outside of the narrow range where it's the best choice.

I'd be more concerned about how gas is feedstock for pharma, and fertiliser.

Re: The Seneca Effect: Growth is slow but collapse is rapid (2017) [pdf]

#50

Post by ggm »

vlovich123 wrote: post #34
jes5199 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m convinced that “density” is not a helpful metric here. There’s plenty of diffuse energy, and it’s advantageous to collect it near where it’s used, rather than make big pipes and ship it around

Disagree. Solar doesn’t work at night and it’s horribly inefficient to have a bunch of local batteries everywhere compared with centralized power generation with relatively cheap wiring distributing the centrally generated energy. Local generation is a greedy solution (I got mine) that has a shared cost (centrally generated power for those who can’t generate their own spikes massively in price). It’s basically a gree…

Always this "horribly inefficient" claim. Yet, several advanced economies are doing it. You think you're smarter than the power industry economists who say batteries are OK?

Basically, have you tried considering you might be .. wrong?

Post reply on HN