Hacker News Reader

Comment by spoonjim | Hacker News Reader

You could live in 200 square feet. You could bathe with one bucket of room temperature water. You could use no air conditioning whatsoever. You could eat only vegetarian food. Etc etc.

You won’t, (and I won’t either) but if it comes down to human survival, forces will find a way to make you do it.

View on HN

This comment has gone grey but I think it is an important point. Our basic expectancies for what makes a comfortable life are higher than ever. Is that an ethical problem or just a result of more/better technology? I'm not really sure.

I would argue we have the technology to sustainably live as we do, for the most part. What we don't have is the manpower and resources to go through and replace all the old tech with the new tech that would allow us to mostly maintain our standard of living.

> Our basic expectancies for what makes a comfortable life are higher than ever.

Not with regard to density, which has been going up, not down.

Not sure why you're being down voted-- This is the right answer. I see people getting mad at suppliers but they have yet to realize they would still please like their consumption supplied...

AWS and GCP are both suppliers, one of them is carbon neutral, the other is still polluting. The end consumer hets the same product.

This idea of consumer fault is deplorable, its not lile i gey accurate information about carbon footprint when i shop

"You could live in 200 square feet."

The house is already a sunk cost, so I am not sure how much point there is

You could confine yourself to one or two rooms and open the rest of the house to communal occupation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com