Comment by Staydecent | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Staydecent | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"everyone chooses to live a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts."

Serious? That's a huge claim. yet, so many people do live this "quieter" life. I am striving to live that life. There is quite a growing community (at least in British Columbia) of people concerned with things like food security and climate change.

Ever since I was young, I was disgusted by the City. Yes, this is not a popular view, but I am in no way choosing to live "a more basic quieter life against our natural instincts." The city was never meant for me.

Though, I'm not really sure what movements you are referring to? Do they include those that suggest consuming less? Or are there some movements somewhere suggesting you start living by candle light?

Sorry, if this comment is off-topic from the article, but it seems wildly bold for you to claim that a way of life is against natural instincts. I strive to live a life combining the joy, satisfaction and security of producing my own food, and living with the land as well as benefiting and perhaps contributing to advancements (particularly with water and power management).

it's not a bold claim at all.

Look around at the planet. Humans are everywhere it is possible to be. Something drove us to do that. And given it is quite unlikely that there was a meeting 100,000 years a go in Africa where we as a species decided - "let's give overrunning the whole planet a go" I think that "instinct" for want of a better word is what drives that. Living in a sustainable way does not come naturally to humans - I'm betting you are well educated and have reasoned long and hard about it.

Yes there are people like you who chose to be sustainable. But unless you get everyone to do it then we are screwed. Because it's an all or nothing plan. And you may love making your own food but by the same token I am really glad someone else is doing it for me. I find it boring and a waste of my time - I want to just be able to get food when i need it without thinking about it. My interests lie elsewhere.

Likewise the global trend is too the city. Every bit of research points to massive urbanisation http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/aug/18/percenta...

We has a species do have the ability to overcome our animal urges but if you don't solve the power problems you are doing to need everyone to do it and the failure mode of that is massive suffering. There are various sustainable living and back to nature and even so called luddite movements and have been for quite a while but I still don't see them being a significant force.

There is nothing wrong with what you are doing at all but do you think you can convince everyone you know outside of your community to join in?

I think you are right. But, I'm not sure.

Perhaps it's better to look at "destroying our planet" (or whatever) as a byproduct? Like you said, we didn't decide this in Africa, it's just a result of our drive to advance our way of life. But, now preserving our environment and adopting more sustainable practices is the next frontier in advancing our way of life.

Also, isn't the basic animal instinct to survive? Scientists claim with the 2C threshold (I think this covers it slightly, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8023072.stm) that we are at a time where without change, we may not survive (in large numbers at least, and in some years)? Maybe the instinct doesn't act on a tribal or global scale, but only personal. Like when a tiger is coming after you.

And, of course, I don't expect everyone to grow their own food. But, there are people who love farming, and if we help these young people get into it, they can provide on a smaller scale, within each community.

I suppose my point is, sure humans have the instinct to advance their way of life, but that does not necessarily go against producing ones own food, or living a quieter and simpler life.

So I do agree that the tipping point will be when the danger is in our collective faces. I also agree there is a good chance it might be pretty bad indeed with as you say large numbers dying.

I don't believe that sustainable ways of life will prevail before any fall. Look at the fishing in the North sea - despite the stocks being pretty much destroyed the fishermen who have taken the fish continue to argue their case to take the very last few because they don't want to change their way of life. This is sadly all too common.

There are people who can see all this working on tech - I think the best bet (ie the one were more of us survive) is if there are some decent breakthroughs. Knowing what I do about projects in progress and the work being done I think there is a good chance this will work out. The reason is that this isn't just a stopping us dying scenario this is making lots of money for lots of people scenario.

If we have to sort ourselves out after a fall - well you may be right. But only for a while. It is almost certain that sooner or later some person or other will look at the next valley or over a sea and think: "hmm what would happen if I went over there. I guess I'll need X Y Z" where X Y Z is some bit of basic tech that doesn't exist yet. and the human race will be off again.

We're tenacious buggers us humans. I don't think it's time to give up and sit quietly by the fire just yet....

(oh and also the very diversity - look at what you are into and what say, I am into - an entrepreneur, a technologist and an optimist - and our different views. That very difference means that we have a "portfolio" strategy as a species. Our eggs are in millions of baskets. There may be a catastrophe and you with your abilities to cope on your own resources will just carry on trucking. Something else my happen and some other group may thrive. It will be a damn hard job killing the lot of us - even for something as resourceful as the human race itself)

We CANNOT overcome our animal urges. NEVER. Don't try it. Which does not imply that we cannot be intelligent and civilized. But the animal in us wants to live and no technology can change that fact.

I don't like cities either. Who tells us that we need to live there? We tell it to ourselves, and probably we fail. We are not coming from a world of traffic noise, air pollution, overproduction, overarousal by all kinds of sensual stimulus. And I am sure that this life can destroy the human species on the long run. HOW do we know if we are made for this life, for this artificial Lebenswelt that we create for ourselves? Evolution is running slowly. This is the problem of tech: that we can totally adapt the environment to us. But what are we? We are living creatures that needed to adapt to the environment in the past. Never the other way round! How will we look like after many generations of as we live today. We are NOT going to look as we look today, and one thing is sure: Living in a world where every ressource is just some steps away, we will not live healthier. The huge thirst for energy is corresponding to this lifestyle, that Stanley Kubrick wants to critizise in "A Clockwork Orange". So your view of disgusting cities - for me it's totally justified! And so your comment is less off-topic than one could think, because needing less energy to live will mean that we surround ourselves more with an environment that is healthy for us and the future generations. This goes hand in hand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com