Hacker News Reader

Comment by maehwasu | Hacker News Reader

It's pretty revealing that almost everyone in the world would far prefer to live in the red countries.

Everyone would probably also prefer to spend the weekend with their high-rolling free-spending uncle, who will be bankrupt in a year but will guarantee you a great time in Las Vegas, than with their budget-conscious boring aunt who will reliably save money away for all the kids' college educations.

Almost a good analogy, except your uncle has enough money to last your entire life and more. That changes how people would decide.

There's no science that suggests that the first world can continue to use up resources and emit carbon at their current rates without eventually both destroying the environment and depleting the resources.

Sure, things could change, like the uncle could suddenly learn to be responsible.

Seriously? Did you not see Canada, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia. For me it was relatively balanced and mainly the US really throws it off. There are also some red countries that I would seriously not want to live in.

The only context where Argentina can be in the same sentence as Australia is in a list of countries in the Southern Hemisphere, or countries whose names start with an 'A'.

I would also have mentioned Uruguay, Finland, and Norway as developed countries that are pretty green on the map.

Edit: although it looks like a way to be a green developed country by this ranking is largely to have extremely uneven population density.

Argentina?

Red countries like Libya?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com