Hacker News Reader

Comment by eastbound | Hacker News Reader

> what the planet can absorb divided by the number of people.

> why not ?

How do you incentive people to work if, in the end, everyone can consume and therefore emit exactly as much?

What’s the goal of studying hard if I’m not getting more consumption rights; Why wouldn’t we all coast school, since we’ll all get the same results; How would the society get any work done if no-one is incentived to work hard (That’s the neat part: You don’t, and you’re all poor as peons); Isn’t it always the same communist dream entering the main door after being kicked out for criminal activity by the back door for being at minimum the least efficient way to organize a society; If you’re going to react to the communist trope as being “not so bad”, doesn’t it confirm that it was what you intended all along.

Why would my consumption rights be exactly 1/8-billionth of the Earth capacity, independently on my work?

View on HN

You seem to think that you work more, or harder than other people, hence you are given more "consumption rights". Please consider that:

- A lot of people are not working to consume more, and it does not prevent them to work hard. They just aren't fulfilling themselves through consumerism. - A lot of people are working harder than you, for less. Should we take parts of your share a give it to them ? Spoiler alert, you will be constrained below 2T of CO2 emission, that's for sure, because you are not working harder than others. - In a finite world, emitting more than your share means stepping on somebody else's share. But why would have that privilege if you are not working more? - In a finite world, stepping on someone else's share that you are not permitted to take leads to a conflict. Conflict means war in a planetary context.

If I may suggest, if what's blocking you from emitting less, is your desire to consume more, you should try to change that, as your consumption capability will reduce in the future, whether you want it or not. This is because our energy sources are becoming less abundant, which means less consumption capability for the same amount of work.

I've just seen your other comment:

> 1. Fear of meritocracy 2. Fear of countries not negotiating an equalitarian deal 3. Fear of the awful science of “that camp” (and I know exactly what 3 arguments you’ll oppose, so, don’t bother with the direct answer, please assume everything you want to answer is already understood and incorrect, and go straight to a second level of answers).

1. Meritocracy is a way to make you feel better for having more than others. In a finite world, having more than other means stealing from them. Nobody merits more than somebody else. At least not at the scale it is happening now. And don't assume that you work more than others.

2. I don't understand what you mean.

3. What is "that camp" ? What scientific studies are you talking about ?

Most of the people who have the option of “studying hard” do not work as hard as the blue collar workers in rural India or rural China. I’m not sure there is a valid argument that consumption should be based on who “works hardest”.

Emissions taxes are the fairest way to balance consumption. That works even for the privileged who consume without hard work.

Sadly, emissions taxes impact the poorest first while being almost pain free for the richest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com