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

China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 666 posts

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#521

Post by myrmidon »

raincole wrote: post #372
voxelghost wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldnt per capita matter? By that logic, you are saying it would be OK for Tuvalu to emit the same amount as the US? Or actually, if per capita doesn't matter. Then China could fracture into 10 separate nations, and their output would sudenly be negliable?

Per captia doesn't matter. > Then China could fracture into 10 separate nations, and their output would sudenly be negliable? Don't you see the argument goes both ways? If the US merge with a few Africa countries, does it count as an "improvement" in regard of carbon emission?

> If the US merge with a few Africa countries, does it count as an "improvement" in regard of carbon emission?

Yes? I fail to see what your point is?

But seems both unworkable and likely to fail/lose its positive effect in less than a decade anyway.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#522

Post by walkingthisquai »

somenameforme wrote: post #513
BrenBarn wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't think the Roman empire was a good thing if we had it today. We can "respect" those older cultures in their context while still recognizing that they were in many ways horrifying by modern standards.

In what way would they be horrifying? The Romans advanced public works, infrastructure, and other such things on an absolutely monumental scale. Many roads built by the Roman Empire are still even in use today! And I think Marcus Aurelius is perhaps the best example in history of a genuinely socially motivated leader. And the lands under their rule were completely able to maintain their own unique identity so long as…

Well 25-30% of the population was enslaved in the Roman empire so that's not ideal.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#523

Post by Liftyee »

vishnugupta wrote: post #314
andrewflnr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

I’m really curious to better understand what aspects of China’s government would hurt your day to day life. From what I read online the people there are free to rant and get things fixed. Their local government representative is held accountable if the people in his/her province are unhappy. Not too different from a typical democratic setup I guess? But this could be off because I don’t know anyone personally there.

Have visited China often. My major gripe to living there would be digital freedom and surveillance - unlocking bootloader,etc are heavily restricted there. Plus the GFW, which does prevent the population being psyop'd by foreign social media, but is a small pain if you need to use outside services.

That doesn't really affect my daily life though, especially for someone born there. If it's the tradeoff for the other aspects (high public safety, developed infrastructure...) then I would consider accepting it.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#524

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

blitzar wrote: post #404
andrewflnr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

I would really respect the hell out of the nation of America if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.

The fact that america can go to authoritarism this quickly and through democratic legal procedures itself is scary and I don't think that I can trust this in the same sense from now on.

Trust is brittle. I looked even more into the facade of america, and honestly, i am confused by both parties to a certain extent which are both controlled by billionaires etc.

The president I respect the most is teddy roosevelt, I have heard good things about kennedy too but I want to read so much more about the absolute chad known as teddy roosevelt.

I think that there is hope for america but that's only if people actually try to understand what's happening, which is what I am hoping, its a shame bernie sanders couldn't have been a president but I am hoping that a new wave of american politics could arise to tackle corruption/politcal lobbying/bribery.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#525

Post by throw0101c »

simsla wrote: post #466
shubhamjain wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. They haven't, imo. I am from India, and I have been hearing for the last two decades how we have avoided same mistakes as China and the latter is headed for a demographic collapse. China is only marching forward, and focusing more on automation to hedge its bets. While overpopulation in India has choked almost every city in Ind…

European here. One of the problems is that many of our society's systems are predicated on a growing population. Social security and pensions, for example, are structured not unlike a pyramid scheme: for every old person we should have more than one working young person. People take more than they give. Fixing that will be painful, but possible. More worrying is how many countries' birth rates have fallen below the r…

> Social security and pensions, for example, are structured not unlike a pyramid scheme: for every old person we should have more than one working young person.

Canada saw the demographic writing on the wall, and solved its public/government pension problem in the 1990s:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Pension_Plan#1998_refor...

Good book on the history of the CPP, and how the reforms were determined and enacted (Fixing the Future by Bruce Little):

* https://utppublishing.com/doi/book/10.3138/9780802095831

There's no reason other countries could not have done something similar earlier (or even now).

In France it is reported that retirees now have higher (average?) incomes than workers:

* https://archive.is/https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/m...

This is completely ludicrous. For retirement planning purposes, it is often recommended to assume you'll need 70% of your working age income for the same lifestyle (you have fewer expenses—live not having a chunk of your income go to retirement savings), but in many situations it could even be ≤50%:

* https://archive.is/https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inv...

To have the same (or more) in retirement generally means you "over saved" while working, and you could have had more resources for enjoyment of life earlier (after all, we don't know when our time will come).

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#526

Post by Thorrez »

zelos wrote: post #520
simsla wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European here. One of the problems is that many of our society's systems are predicated on a growing population. Social security and pensions, for example, are structured not unlike a pyramid scheme: for every old person we should have more than one working young person. People take more than they give. Fixing that will be painful, but possible. More worrying is how many countries' birth rates have fallen below the r…

> for every old person we should have more than one working young person. I never understood this thinking. Doesn't it assume infinite population is possible?

Occupy Mars!

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#527

Post by Paradigma11 »

zelos wrote: post #520
simsla wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European here. One of the problems is that many of our society's systems are predicated on a growing population. Social security and pensions, for example, are structured not unlike a pyramid scheme: for every old person we should have more than one working young person. People take more than they give. Fixing that will be painful, but possible. More worrying is how many countries' birth rates have fallen below the r…

> for every old person we should have more than one working young person. I never understood this thinking. Doesn't it assume infinite population is possible?

No, it does not. If, for example you define old persons, as persons above the age of 90, you suddenly have many young to old persons.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#528

Post by refurb »

hollywood_court wrote: post #517
refurb wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a wild comment. It claims free speech is being taken away, then gets upset people use it (Fox News). Then it celebrates a law that actually curtails free speech.

What's wilder is the fact that my generation was told that rock music, rap music, video games, etc would be lead to the decline of our society. But it turns out that Fox News was far more destructive than all of those things combined. In the US, organized religion and Fox News are the two most destructive forces in our society.

If your theory was logically sound it would be interesting to hear more.

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#529

Post by zelos »

somenameforme wrote: post #513
BrenBarn wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't think the Roman empire was a good thing if we had it today. We can "respect" those older cultures in their context while still recognizing that they were in many ways horrifying by modern standards.

In what way would they be horrifying? The Romans advanced public works, infrastructure, and other such things on an absolutely monumental scale. Many roads built by the Roman Empire are still even in use today! And I think Marcus Aurelius is perhaps the best example in history of a genuinely socially motivated leader. And the lands under their rule were completely able to maintain their own unique identity so long as…

Yeah, but apart from all that, what have the Romans ever done for us?

Re: China has added forest the size of Texas since 1990

#530

Post by jonathanlydall »

zelos wrote: post #520
simsla wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European here. One of the problems is that many of our society's systems are predicated on a growing population. Social security and pensions, for example, are structured not unlike a pyramid scheme: for every old person we should have more than one working young person. People take more than they give. Fixing that will be painful, but possible. More worrying is how many countries' birth rates have fallen below the r…

> for every old person we should have more than one working young person. I never understood this thinking. Doesn't it assume infinite population is possible?

It's not like people sat down and said "clearly we'll have infinite population and hence a pyramid like scheme for social support for the elderly is ideal".

It was more likely something like "for the foreseeable future we'll have population growth and therefore a pyramid like scheme is a good solution for now".

Ideally the scheme should have already started adapting to the changing population dynamics, but humans for the most part (unfortunately) tend to kick problems down the road.

Politicians don't tend to get rewarded for solving tomorrow's problem when their populace tend to me more interested in having more money to spend right now.

So here we are, living large today with little regard for the cost to our future.

Post reply on HN