Hacker News Reader

Comment by TeMPOraL | Hacker News Reader

Nah, I see nothing hopeful in enormous suffering and death of billions of people, which is what would happen in days following our civilization breaking to pieces.

(And to be clear: I'm not exaggerating when I say billions.)

View on HN

If by whiskey... :)

Thank you for teaching me a new term. That said, I'm having a hard time seeing its relevance here :).

Well, if by modern way you mean modern healthcare, ease of communication and travel, varied food throughout the year, etc. then I'm certainly for its continued existence. If by modern way you mean the degradation of nature, the plastering with ads of every inch of the world, the addictiveness of facebook, and time spent in company-meetings, then its collapse could not come one second too soon. (Just some random picks to illustrate the analogy, not to be taken too seriously :)

If you could surgically cut out bad slices while retaining the good, I'd be first to support it (e.g. I've written about my stance on advertising elsewhere[0]). It's not something I believe is possible without going about it very carefully, and very piecemeal.

I meant my comment in the context of the comments about fragility of our civilization (e.g. GPS being tied to power grids and agriculture and trade). Severely disrupt the systems that feed and warm us daily could easily topple the entire civilization, and I wanted to highlight that "toppling" here is a synonym for billions of deaths from starvation in a very short time frame, followed by not having a technological civilization for thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

[0] - http://jacek.zlydach.pl/blog/2019-07-31-ads-as-cancer.html

At least our C02 emissions would be reduced.

That's putting cart before the horse. The only reason to care about CO₂ emissions is because they threaten our technological civilization. The planet doesn't care about CO₂.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com