Hacker News Reader

> Creating a solar panel that never needs to be replaced is a business failure.

Creating a solar panel that never needed to be replaced and could be manufactured at the same price as less-durable alternatives would make you very rich. Why would anyone buy from your competitors when they can get a more durable panel for the same cost from you?

> Human population is predicted to decline in many parts of the world and this is seen as a massive economic risk, not a boon for the planet. It’s a risk because we’ve all gotten comfy with the guarantee that property we buy will always become worth more over time. Less humans to buy stuff? Unthinkable.

It’s much less sinister than that. Many modern societies are structured under the assumption that there’s many more young people than old people, so the young people can share the load of caring for the elderly who are no longer able to work. When you have a sudden in fertility rates, the ratio of young:old goes down, and each young person has to contribute a larger percentage of their effort into caring for the elderly. That’s not necessarily a pleasant responsibility to put on young people, or a position I’d want to be put in as an older person

> Why would anyone buy from your competitors when they can get a more durable panel for the same cost from you?

Uhh, there are plenty of examples of this not happening already. Monopolies and oligopolies prevent this type of competition. Consumers don't always prefer quality and sustainability because we have holes in our system which prevent the true cost of things from being born by the consumer.

It's incredibly common.

> The sooner we show some humility and realize that we’re the problem

Why do people just love to hate on their own existence? How many extinction events have there been that just wiped out the vast majority of species far before humans even existed?

If earth is to flourish, grow and continue it's trend of supporting ever more complex forms of life - it will be humans that can make that happen. In the absence of humans, earth is just awaiting another mass extinction event (maybe even _with_ humans, but certainly no other species on earth has had the capacity to maybe stop one of these events from happening)

Humans are freaking incredible, miracles that boggles the mind to consider how we even exist. I'm not sure why we pretend otherwise.

> In the absence of humans, earth is just awaiting another mass extinction event

Spoiler: the next mass extinction event is already happening, and it's caused by humans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

If we were already in a mass extinction event then we should stop all forms of conservation biology and redirect that energy towards entertainment.

A mass extinction event isn't a line of dominos toppling over, but can be stopped. A mass extinction event is something that has started that can't be stopped.

Luckily, the conservation studies continue, because they understand we haven't entered into an actual mass extinction event. We've simply used it as a tool to drum up necessary attention and funding for preservation before we actually find ourselves in one.

> Humans are freaking incredible, miracles that boggles the mind to consider how we even exist. I'm not sure why we pretend otherwise.

This cuts both ways. We're super special at both creating and destroying. I don't see OP as hating on humans in general. They are concerned that we are using our super amazing talents the wrong way and want us to be even better.

I appreciate this all-too-rare take. It concerns me that it's so popular to be negative. I believe a lot more good can come about with a positive attitude -- honest and critical at times, yes, but at some point you just gotta put your boots on and get to work.

> How many extinction events have there been that just wiped out the vast majority of species far before humans even existed?

Those weren’t caused by the species themselves though

You have it backwards. Solar panels are a fungible commodity good with no differentiation besides quality and cost. The financial incentive points strongly in the direction of longevity.

So, the good news is that we can generate all the power we will ever need from the sun using cheap solar panels that will last a very long time.

You are mixing up a few trends here. The world population is expected to peak at around 10 billion people end of this century. Some places will indeed have shrinking populations but that isn't true everywhere. Aside from genocide at a really monstrous scale, the reality of a population that big is that it will consume resources and energy whether we like it or not.

Given that, solar power is a cheap and clean solution that with price and production growth trends suggested in the article might be more than enough much sooner than some people seem to think. Exponentials are funny like that.

Energy generation is a dirty business today. This seems like it is the whole premise for your negativity. Here is a fix that seems on track to challenge that whole notion. The beauty with things like this is that they have a certain inevitability about them. Population growth creates the demand for energy. Meeting that demand improves the economics. And at some point the problem melts away. The wheels for that have been in motion for a while now. And all the article suggests is that we are going to be fine a bit sooner than some people thought. Extrapolate current trends and it adds up to synthetic fuel being cheaper than fossil fuel.

Ban advertising, and let the world go back to yellow pages.

A good first step towards solving the overconsumption problem.

Not sure why this is downvoted.

Either advertising is effective to some degree, in which case banning it would necessarily help curtail consumption.

Or it's ineffective, in which case it would necessarily save a ton of wasted resources and man hours.

I would happily defend the position that advertising does more harm to society than good, if anyone is willing to reply in good faith instead of just cowardly downvoting me into oblivion.

Just look at the cosmetics industry, the fashion industry, and the modelling industry. Industries that arguably provide next to no tangible worth to society, are run by sketchy people and wreak havok on the mental health of young people, girls especially. They're terrible for the climate, you got companies like HM using child labour, and generally inhumane working conditions, to create low quality clothes that break quickly, so they can sell even more. These industries are pretty much completely dependent on advertisement, and devoid of moral and ethical fibre.

Then look at IKEA, running ads bragging about their refurbished furniture, while their business model still relies on cheap, illegally sourced wood from the Balkans and planned obsolescence. Why are they allowed to so falsely represent themselves as "sustainable"?

Then you have the whole surveillance capitalist industrial complex of Facebook, Google, etc. Heavily ad based business models.

The ad industry is clearly out of control. It's a tumour on our society.

I probably wouldn't go as far an outright ban myself, but I would definitely welcome far, far more savage regulation of it.

It's downvoted because its a broad populist statement that isn't actionable in that form and doesn't provide any value to the discussion. In contrast your take is a lot more nuanced and something that actually can serve as a basis for fruitful discussion.

Banning advertisment outright is about as realistic as banning humans from communicating.

That's fine, but pointing that out, like you did now and providing a cogent reply like I tried to almost always leads to interesting discussions, I've found. The trolls run away at the first sight of real discussion anyway, most of the time.

> Our very existence is the problem, and our insatiable appetites for reproducing and consuming.

Would you tell an animal that? What about bacteria?

I think the optimistic view is fashion is cyclical and the contrary will become fashionable again.

> Would you tell an animal that? What about bacteria?

Yes, see: every “invasive” species. Or bacterial infection.

Yeah but would you tell a living plant that to their face? Those poor ivy, kudzu, algae, and dandelion weeds! /s

> Creating a solar panel that never needs to be replaced is a business failure. Selling the same number of electric cars next year, instead of more, is a business failure. Not consuming more next year is an economic failure

It looks like the solution they have come up with for this is subscriptions - you never buy your car or your solar panel, you just subscribe to them.

> Our very existence is the problem, and our insatiable appetites for reproducing and consuming. The sooner we show some humility and realize that we’re the problem, and our system of forever growth is guaranteed to destroy the planet, the better.

Until we find evidence otherwise we are literally the only valuable thing in existence. So yes hyper-growth is the path forward. If it ruins the planet we'll fix it later or come up with enough of a stopgap to get us to the next milestone.