Hacker News Reader

Comment by omginternets | Hacker News Reader

I second this. I was poised to dismiss your comment as facetiousness, and then suddenly realized that you are exactly correct. Why indeed should we prefer cars over horses for most (but of course not all) applications?

Aren't we as technologists always preaching the benefits of technological conservatism, minimalism and simplicity?

Our environment has obviously changed in such a way that it's now difficult to re-introduce equine transportation on a mass scale (where would you park them in a city designed for automobiles?), but we need to think long and hard about the world view that led us to conclude cars were universally superior to horses. I suspect the argument comes down to "productivity", and the axiomatic belief that it should be maximized in all circumstances.

I think your comment actually is wise.

View on HN

fredfoobar _was_ being facetious. By his comments such as [1] and [2] it's clear that he's trying to attack other things in the world that happen to be both useful and pollutant, and induce a parallel between them and bitcoin — his implicit argument being that bitcoin supposedly a net-positive beneficial thing in spite of the pollution it causes. Whenever someone counters that assumption, the mask falls off and he's back on the attack [3].

That does not invalidate the point that cars _are_ highly pollutant and shouldn't be the primary means of transportation in any sustainable society.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26319996 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26319974 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26319558

Yes, and I was about to dismiss the comment until I realized there was some depth to it despite the facetiousness.

Indeed! you sound like eminent scholar in the area of "usefulness of things", clearly your opinions are free of bias. I tip my hat to you, you have unmasked me! I feel naked.

In all seriousness though, we should at least move to electric cars.

If that is acceptable we already have electric money (bitcoin), it'll fix most of our pollution problems. We don't have to worry about how much oil is being consumed to secure the petrodollar network. I've been waiting for a better argument against bitcoin for a long time, I haven't heard any yet.

Most people who criticize bitcoin don't even understand it fully. My belief is that as people look deeper into it, they will be convinced by themselves. It has been generally true among my friends, including myself. I have gone through those phases of criticism (energy usage, funds terror, governments will ban it, it will be hacked, quantum computers will destroy it). As a software engineer, I think the system is beautiful, if you are one by profession (or not), I implore you to study it.

What I desperately would like to understand is that why are there so many attacks on bitcoin based on flimsy opinions and incorrect information?

In Europe, there are not much cities that were designed for automobiles. Most down town designs predate automobiles by several centuries. That is why traffic congestion, and related externalities, are very significant problem for Europe, much more than for US. During several last years, there had emerged a movement when large cities introduce anti-car rules, effectively banning traffic in the most affected areas.

Some recent reporting on it from NatGeo:

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/travel/2021/02/six-euro...

I am European as well :)

My point was that they have become adapted to a point where it is very difficult to re-adapt them to horses.

One argument is that horses are living creatures. Farming them as labor slaves to meet the needs of industry is cruel and would likely have comparable environmental impact to factory farming meat.

Yes indeed. I’ve seen HN comments that pretend to be serious until the end when you realize it was parody. This comment accomplished the reverse.

E-bikes are the new horses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com