Hacker News Reader

Comment by anthony_romeo | Hacker News Reader

IMO The tone of HN comments is teetering over the edge of decorum, similar to the atmosphere of Reddit prior to every new nadir of commentary there.

I'm not going to look through rose-tinted glasses and suggest "things were better in the good ol' days". Contrarian reactions to top posts are the bread-and-butter of a healthy message board.

However, to me it feels like the quality of these contrarian takes have gone down. People seem far more 'committed' to pushing their positions to incense others with overgeneralizing karma-clickbait. This causes the dialectic to become more of a debate instead of a deliberation, and to me the latter is far more useful and engaging.

With that said, I also know that my tastes change as I get older, so this could truly be my own delusion.

View on HN

Curiosity has its bounds. Some topics, arguably, are the equivalent of discussing the temperature and color of the fire as the house burns.

I too am getting older, and while I don’t feel I’m becoming galvanized per se, I think my tolerance for those not acting in good faith has rapidly approached zero. If the data speaks and the counterparty opposes facts, there is no way to have a productive discussion. An example from my own experience would be when talking to someone about climate change, which they don’t believe in because “God will make sure it all works out”. There is no value in engaging in those situations, and similar anecdotes can be found here. Belief systems and mental models can be rigid.

Here you can replace 'God' with technology and that's pretty much what you'll see here. Unwavering belief that technology will be their salvation from climate change.

You proved my point! The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved. There is thread after thread after thread chock full of citations on this matter. And yet you say, without the slightest hint of proof, that’s it’s a belief versus data.

It’s astounding really, and these data points have helped me recalibrate my expectations of fellow humans, as well as my empathy for them.

There's a big difference between "technology can save the world" and "technology saves the world". Right now we see a lot of talk and very little action so indeed, I wouldn't rely as of yet on technology either.

>The data shows that between renewables, storage, transmission, heat pumps, and electrifying mobility, climate change can be solved.

Gonna need a link to one of those threads full of citations on this claim, because this is not at all my understanding. Even if we had a magic wand that would reduce anthropogenic CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) emissions to zero overnight, we're already far above historic atmospheric CO2 concentrations and will be paying the price.

Edit: since I'm asking for citations, here's mine[1] showing that according to climate models zero CO2 emissions from 2020 onward would have little effect on the global mean temperature through 2100.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1/figures/2

It just depends on your definition of "solved". If solved means "all consequences of anthropogenic climate change avoided" then it's obviously too late, there's no solution other than time travel. If solved means "humanity survives as a species" then we're in pretty good shape no matter what we do. For most people I think solved means "we avoid the worst effects", which of course leads to another question about definitions.

Many people look at the graph in your citation and see it as a picture of success, because the baseline in their mind is RCP8.5. Note that the graph makes a comparison to RCP2.6, which is not a "do nothing" scenario, it's a pretty optimistic and aspirational future.

I'm normally simpatico with you, but I need you to help me find the data that says that this will work without cutting energy consumption in rich countries, and do that without creating a permanent underclass of poor countries forcibly held to a lower consumption rate than than those rich countries.

I have yet to see a scientific case for luxury communism where every Indian peasant gets their own suburban yard.

edit: and I do see a lot of people saying that technology right around the corner will just solve the problem without anyone having to change their lifestyle in the slightest.

The alternative is billions dead and cultural extinction - at best.

"I didn't want to cut down on drinking/CO2/media pollution/etc so I killed myself instead" - which of these is a winning move?

The problem, of course, is that the people who would need to cut down the most are also the people least likely to die.

Not everyone is so lucky to just cut media pollution. Imagine a subsistence farmer that wants a tractor so the children don't need to help in the field and can go to school. That would increase the carbon footprint of the family.

My understanding is that all that technology can slow the influence of the existing damage of climate change, not solve it. This is partially because climate change is an ongoing phemomenon that 1) has already happened; 2) is currently happening; 3) will continue to happen. In order to "solve" climate change one would have to go back in time.

Didn't realize I was going to have a defend a PHD dissertation with my comment, especially since I don't claim to be an expert on climate change or anything, this is mainly what I've gathered from a few books and many articles and news stories I've read.

The biggest problem I see with 'technology will solve everything' beliefs (evidence-based beliefs are still beliefs) is that these solutions are almost always in a people and political vacuum. They assume that there will be nothing stopping or slowing it down or even reversing it from happening, from people not wanting wind farms in their back yard[1], to human nature prioritizing short-term issues over long-term threats[2][3] and voting accordingly[4], the inability for a people to enforce change on a global level (even if the US behaves perfectly, how are they going to get China[5] or India[6] to go to zero emissions without going to war with them...we saw this exact problem play out with the Covid pandemic, although the US was one of those bad actors). And politicians themselves have little-to-no incentives to stop climate change[7].

You even got people like Biden, who says "climate change is the number one issue facing humanity"[8], and yet he's caught falling asleep at the COP26 climate summit[9] (which does not help the image of how seriously the US is treating climate change) as well as approving new drilling permits for oil and gas extraction, at a faster rate than even Trump[10]. And lobbyists are able to kill climate change legislation just by putting some cash in the right politician's hands (Manchin in this case)[11].

There's other issues with the actual feasibility of the technology as well, such as we might not have enough materials for all the solar panels and wind turbine we'll need to build[12] (and the actual study they cite here[13]). But that's really a whole separate thing I don't have time to hunt down the articles for right now.

We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if it weren't for people's actions, and now fans of the technology think everyone is going to magically do a full 180 on their behavior and fall in line for something they can't even see beyond some wildfires and stronger hurricanes, which they dismiss as freak events just as easily and keep their heads in the sand.

If anything it appears to me that we're going to wrong direction as far as the human and political element is concerned. Yes, some things are getting better, but we need massive global systemic change decades ago and that's clearly still not happening today, despite great progress on Solar and Wind affordability and EV cars (as well as other initiatives).

I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue these technological solutions as much as we can, far from it. I just think because of various reasons it's not going to get us to where we need to be, and more work needs to be done on trying to rewrite the brains and incentive-structures of people and politicians or we're almost certainly not going to meet those goals, and that's being glossed over in favor of saying "well, technically it can still be done!"

[1]: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-4-fall/feature/nimby-...

[2]: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=553048...

[3]: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190109-the-perils-of-sh...

[4]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/13/the-no-1-esg-issue-for-ameri...

[5]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi...

[6]: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/exclusive-india-may-buil...

[7]: https://theconversation.com/cop26-why-politicians-have-littl...

[8]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/24/joe-biden-climate-change-is-...

[9]: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/11/02/joe-biden-doz...

[10]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/2...

[11]: https://www.npr.org/2021/12/20/1065695953/build-back-better-...

[12]: https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25576543/re...

[13]: https://www.metabolic.nl/publication/metal-demand-for-renewa...

Exactly. You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless." This then quickly and naturally devolves into authoritarian feelings, proposals, and anger. I think people who participate in such arguments fail to see how history is replete with examples of how this type of angry spirit leads to nothing but war, subjugation, and death. In other words, it's an egotistical expression that lacks historical wisdom.

It is bad when people do bad things. It is absolutely morally reprehensible when they do those bad things knowingly in bad faith. It is terrible and exhausting to deal with those people and the people further clouding the air around the things those people do by expressing their ignorance proudly and angrily and attacking anyone whose behavior does not properly signal the same pride in the same ignorance.

That's one of the deeper wisdoms of non-violent direct action. That the way in which one wins is as important as winning, because it shapes the people who exist after the conflict is resolved.

Internet arguing follows the same logic. If I logically out-fence you by being an asshole, what have I gained? What have we gained?

Whereas if I politely and respectfully describe why eating Irish babies is a solution to overpopulation of the lower classes [0], we all feel better about ourselves, even if you decline to agree with me.

[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1080/1080-h/1080-h.htm

> You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric--"My side is obviously right and X people agree. This other side is hopeless."

The thing is, from a neutral external perspective, when one side claims "there is no climate change, only God's will" and the other side claims "Climate change is man-made and will escalate to the point of irreversibility if nothing is done", then only one side can back up their argument with verifiable facts. And yet, "listen to both sides!!!"-style arguments result in complete bullshit given the attention of millions of people.

Democratic discourse fundamentally needs facts to debate, not lies, propaganda or un-verifiable anecdotes. People who come to a democratic discourse without facts deserve no time of democratic people. Democracy itself is at war with disinformation from all kind of sources, both foreign (Russian and Chinese propaganda) and domestic (corporate or otherwise financially motivated shills, authoritarian politicians willing to grab power).

> People who come to a democratic discourse without facts deserve no time of democratic people.

I disagree. If 95% of the people come to a discourse with no facts, and we follow this guideline, what kind of democracy is that?

IMO it is our responsibility in a democracy to listen and empathize with others, no matter how wrong they are. It is equally my responsibility to convince others, as it is for others to be convinced by reasonable arguments.

This is all notwithstanding the reality that what constitutes "fact" is not at all clear. In this kind of discourse, I place that word into the "thought-terminating cliche" category. Typically what is heralded as "fact" and "100% true" is much more nuanced with caveats, probabilities, normative assumptions, inferences, etc.

I find people confusing arguments with mere assertions.

If there's no train of logic, no explanation, no underlying data, why are we pretending the individual is trying to engage in a honest discussion?

There is no arguing the authority of papal edicts with a devout papist, modern civilization long ago learned it was fruitless to try.

If someone trades in ungrounded declarations instead of propositions that one can attempt to "ground", there is no argument made and thus no "sides" to discuss.

Many people like to argue for the sake of arguing and it's a waste of time.

The goal of democratic discussion isn't to agree on the truth, it's to reach decision-making consensus for governing. People can come to that kind of consensus while disagreeing on fundamental things.

Ultimately I think we agree about consensus being fundamental, democracy is great in that people have a path for the peaceful transfer of power in the face of disagreements and cultural shift. It's great because it gives us generational paths to decrease violence.

How fundamental? Where would you draw distinction (if at all)? So my brother is an anarchist, he is also a drug abuser that has spent time in jail and is a dangerous person to be around physically.

I have yet to ever see him argue in good faith.

He does not tell 99% of people that this is a what he believes, he just argues in person and online whatever can cause the most turmoil and/or positions that point to everyone being selfish and fundamentally evil, or the situation hopeless and that cruelty and power dynamics are not something that often "is", but something we "ought" to embrace.

In a democratic republic people "can" do a lot of things, just like the individual "can" do all kinds of things without dying or being jailed right away.

That doesn't mean they are healthy or good, that doesn't mean every ungrounded belief that exists needs to be engaged or given equal billing in public discourse. It's noise, not signal and if we are intelligent we will reject it as noise instead of rebroadcasting it. It also doesn't mean we ought to abandoned working towards a "grounded" consensus because rejecting factual evidence is somehow "virtuous" or cynically sophisticated.

Increasingly I see that people seem to argue as if rejecting a pragmatic, propositionally grounded and arguable discourse is something to give up on, or to stop advocating for, and I do question the intent behind that as it seems unsustainable and counter to past, evidentially productive, consensus building.

Seeing these arguments in the wild is to be expected when an increasing percentage of the population express a rejection of democracy itself in polls. On pluralistic open forums people/anarchists/my brother will argue orthogonally about how to "do democracy" while advocating positions that epistemologically undercut attempts at consensus, and they'll do this instead of saying "I reject democracy" because in many circles it's not in vogue _yet_ to say you've rejected democratic governance.

The idea that a majority of people in any country can fundamentally disagree that we live in a shared pragmatic reality, one that can be scrutinized, investigated, argued/communicated about and we will somehow still end up with sustainable democratic outcomes seems improbable, and I question anyone saying grounded arguments aren't that important.

> Democratic discourse fundamentally needs facts to debate, not lies, propaganda or un-verifiable anecdotes. People who come to a democratic discourse without facts deserve no time of democratic people.

I agree. Wholeheartedly. What falsehoods do you hold that keep you from participating in democracy then? Or are you saying that you, above everyone else, uses facts and logic only?

What have you voted for based on emotion?

I am not someone that holds back criticism. I do believe many mistake that for negativity. Maybe I am too hostile to advertising that I tend to curb my enthusiasm about many new products, although I am still interested in them.

Sometimes it feels pretty lonely in the group of people that don't expect the near end of the world. Especially annoying in times when policy is often put forward in times of crisis. I don't mean Covid, the last decade was full of that.

You would think religious people and climate scientists could come together to proclaim that the end is nigh, sometimes you have to start at common positions...

Problem is that the both-sides perspective is more often correct than not. People will identify different facts and different instances of propaganda. Especially if said fact rely on nothing more than perfectly compiled statistics. Good ideas must prevail against opposition.

There is also an argument that states have problems to project power against multi billion $ companies, but the answer should certainly not be propaganda.

> Exactly. You see "both sides" using the exact same rhetoric

How much of this is due not so much to some kind of fundamental similarity between their positions but rather to the virtually complete removal of rhetoric from the typical curriculum? Perhaps people argue like children because their thoughts are childlike, but perhaps they’re merely incompetent rhetoricians.

So how would you persuade people who don't believe in climate change for religious and/or short term economic reasons that climate change is is a very real and extremely serious medium term threat?

That's what the facts strongly suggest. Implying that people who use facts in argument are being rhetorical is - rhetorical itself.

We have evidence to support technology's potential to solve certain issues. Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently. It's naive to think it'll all go as planned with some needed happy surprises along the way, but comparing that to 'God will handle it' feels a little stretched.

> Hell, I'd go so far as to say solutions for every major climate problem are on the roadmap currently.

"Even if the world manages to limit warming to 1.5C, some long-term impacts of warming already in train are likely to be inevitable and irreversible. These include sea level rises, the melting of Arctic ice, and the warming and acidification of the oceans. Drastic reductions in emissions can stave off worse climate change, according to IPCC scientists, but will not return the world to the more moderate weather patterns of the past."

"Ed Hawkins, a professor of climate science at the University of Reading, and a lead author for the IPCC, said: “We are already experiencing climate change, including more frequent and extreme weather events, and for many of these impacts there is no going back.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/aug/09/humans-have-...

And actually, here's this direct from the headline statements in the IPCC report itself:

"Many changes due to past and future greenhouse gas emissions are irreversible for centuries to millennia, especially changes in the ocean, ice sheets and global sea level."

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6...

Don't misinterpret my statement to mean "we can undo all the damage already done". Also, don't misinterpret it to mean "we can prevent any further damage".

When I say solutions are on the roadmap, I mean somewhere down the road we'll be able to stop doing the bad things and save ourselves.

Except when it comes to mRNA vaccine mandates, then technology is suddenly bad.

> I think my tolerance for those not acting in good faith has rapidly approached zero.

That may be the difference. A few years ago, more of the contrarian takes were in good faith, with real thought behind them. You could learn something new from them, even if you didn't completely agree with them. That also meant that, when you were confronted with a contrarian take, you were more likely to expect that it was made in good faith. This led to a different feel for the whole site.

Now it seems that more of the contrarian (and even mainstream) takes are just repeating talking points. They are, in CapitalistCartr's words, "a set of recordings", so they're no point trying to have a discussion.

I don't know how to get back to where HN was five years ago. I can feel the difference, and I prefer the old version.

#OldManYellsAtClouds, I guess...

Seconded.

> Now it seems that more of the contrarian (and even mainstream) takes are just repeating talking points.

This is the main thing to me. If someone disagreed with me here 15 years ago (I wish I still remembered the account, but oh well), I would have assumed that they personally saw something wrong in what I was saying and were reacting to it. Even if somebody wanted to pick a fight with me, it was because they, personally, wanted to pick a fight. (Whether with me or just the first person they disagreed with).

Now, someone disagreeing is likely to be knee-jerk reacting to what I said because it tripped across some red or blue team media shibboleth and I didn't say the right things so I must be one of the 'bad people', which is then how people proceed to talk to me. There are certain words, phrases, and topics that the media have turned so completely into litmus tests that they act as triggers to bypass people's critical thinking.

If you want to disagree with me, I want people disagreeing with ME, not the strawman communist or facist they've constructed in their heads.

Time becomes more valuable as we get older.

Posting a contrarian take can get you fired.

There is little point in peaking out from whatever novel thing you're interested in and discussing it when there are people who get their fun out of ruining lives.

This selects for people who post boring but inflammatory takes, and encourages heterodox thinkers who are trying to gain followings to meld their views to their audience.

There are a lot of dimensions changing here, so it's hard to figure out if it's the audience, the content, the comments, the environment in which HN exists or you. Probably some of each but tough to determine which is the first-order cause.

I waste as little time as possible writing contrarian comments here because I know they will get flagged immediately and nobody will get to read them.

This is a concern. In exploring any space we risk getting stuck at a local maximum. But this may occur when one holds on to their current ideas too strongly and immediately rejects ideas that go downhill so to speak. Flagging does seem overused on HN lately. It would be interesting to know many HN active users there have been over the years and perhaps that is the reason flagging occurs more frequently. For the record I have had various HN accounts for almost a decade and last month was the first time I was ever flagged.

In my experience, just adding politeness to a contrarian comment avoids the downvotes.

I had some downvoted comments but I think it never happened when I was politely disagreeing before making my point.

I think people (and I include myself) are more easily "triggerable" nowadays.

I also think we can fix this by taking the habit to write like we are attacking the point and not the person.

One easy way to do this is to overuse the "I" subject, even if it is to write and not just throw your facts. There is no real difference between « you are wrong because » and « I think you missed [that point] because » but the later is, automatically, more respectful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com