Hacker News Reader

Comment by piyushpr134 | Hacker News Reader

Coming from India and as someone who has lived, growing up (in the 90s), without power for hours and days...trust me you are going to be deeply inconvenienced but not going to die.

We had hand fans (hot climate) and fire in large bowl shaped vessels (when cold). Nights without power are spent sleeping on terrace. We had oil lamps for light in the evening. Most night activity would siege by 8pm max to wake up early at 4am ish.

For water we have wells and ponds. Flushing...well what's that! Indian toilets were made to not need lot of water flushing or people simply used nature toilet!

No fridge (fresh food ftw), no vacuum (brooms and mop only), no elevators, no mixer grinder! But we lived. People adapt

Society would collapse and go back in time...however people are more resilient.

View on HN

I think the experience you've described mostly works out because the infrastructure has developed (or not developed) in conjunction with unreliable power. It would be a pretty different story in a dense US city: there are no wells to draw from, no simplified infrastructure designed to operate with minimum power or water, etc.

In other words: mature infrastructure is both our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. Countries that haven't as fully established their dependence on large-scale public infrastructure won't suffer as badly under a grid collapse.

From Iraq, we went from zero power cuts in decades to no power at all within two weeks in the gulf war in 90, as NATO countries attacked all our civilian power stations. Life became horrible but we adapted. In some cases there were fights between people no different than the fights you saw in western countries over toilet rolls during covid, but I wouldn’t say it was a total society collapse. People will always find a way to adapt.

Iraq's pre-war HDI was 0.560[1]. The US's in the same year was 0.865[2].

People will indeed always find a way to adapt! But I think these comparisons are fundamentally suspect: there really hasn't been think kind of mass-scale infrastructure collapse in a country nearly remotely developed as the US (or Canada, or the EU). The closest thing would probably be the war in Ukraine, and even there the infrastructure failures are relatively localized.

[1]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/iraq

[2]: https://countryeconomy.com/hdi/usa

Similar story here - when NATO bombed Serbia (we were part of Yugoslavia in 1999) we had similar experience. We had 4 hour blackouts per day, not more luckily, as everyone had a lot of frozen food that could go bad if blackouts were longer.

not to sound all propagandist but russia attacking ukraine infra is "bad" but NATO attacking iraq is "collateral damage".

Similarly I do not like authoritarians and therefore feel very bad for North Korean citizens. However I don’t understand why they are not allowed (or Iran, or any country) to build their own nuclear weapons.

Many countries have nukes - what is their right to have them? Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction?

I wish nukes would go away, but morally speaking if one country can have them then all countries can have them. It’s power politics after that.

> Shouldn’t every country have the right to mutually assured destruction?

not really. If you didn't already have nukes, but your regime is much against the west, i'd argue that it is the right thing for the west to deny it from them. I am attaching no moral argument to this - simply a practical, utilitarian argument.

The reason russia has free reign to invade ukraine is _because_ they have nukes. Iraq invaded Kuwait just the same, but was pressed back in a war - imagine if they did have nukes; it would mean that Iraq could've acted with impunity, and they'd control all of the oil resources that was Kuwaits'.

I agree from a western perspective. In a power struggle of west vs. various eastern alliances, it is in the west’s interest to prevent the spread of nukes.

From a plain and simple moral perspective, IMO every country has the right to build them. Preventing that is about what team you are on rather than morals.

It is a mistake to think in moral categories regarding to international politics.

Morale is something a group-in-power uses to control (or influence) the public. Like fear, greed, or compassion. Morale is not a basis for political decisions or political analysis.

Every country's ruler wants nuclear weapons. And every ruler wants the other rulers not to have the bomb at the same time.

To force the others not to develop the bomb, you must put pressure on them. A good way to put pressure is... to have the bomb.

>but your regime is much against the west,

flip it over. west is against you so why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?

> why should you submit to THEIR moral argument of denying YOU of nukes when they themselves have it?

As the parent poster explicitly states, there is no "moral argument" made there, it's a very utilitarian realpolitik argument that allowing you nukes is risky enough that for any western politician respecting their countries' interests the right choice is to enforce submission with all kinds of means (economic, military, espionage).

In my opinion, the situation where only a few powerful countries with quite stable institutions have nukes is better for humanity than the situation where every country has their own nukes. Just consider the number of coups or wars going on every decade: if everyone the incumbent leader knows that they can just press the red button and wipe out their opponents, of course it would en up happening one day, and could trigger a chain reaction.

This risk of "president goes mad" (don't look at the button Vladimir) is minimal when as few countries as possible have nukes.

Of course, this goes against the social justice between countries - but wait, does that concept even exist?

uh,,,, trump doesn't fall into the "president goes mad"? wasn't he the single guy who walked away from iran deal when even iran was willing to satisfy their end and EU urged US to reconsider but trump refused? could that not have solved "A LOT OF OUR PROBLEMS" and problems of ordinary citizens living in iran? but no. trump had to fuck this one up and looks like he wants a second run.

For most normal countries that aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order it is probably safest for them if no one else can have them.

The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction, so more actors are likely going to be more dangerous than the danger from the current holders.

>>> For most normal countries That's quite a racist thing to say. There is no such thing as normal and abnormal countries! >>> aren't engaged in a power struggle against the world order The US has been engaged in several coups around the world, but you will of course conveniently ignore this and pretend these countries are struggling to defeat the US. >>> The problem with nukes is that any one competent holder of nukes can basically trigger mutually assure destruction Counter point. India and Pakistan have not engaged in war since them both becoming nuclear powers. The US and Russia unlikely to go to war because of the ir nuclear powers! If every country had them it's likely to make the world safer.

so why should "west" have them as opposed to someone else?

They are the current rulers and they have ruled it be this way.

No one is arguing "should".

I would posit that the climate and the season matter enough to be a solid moral distinction in this case. Civilian lives depend on gas and electricity in all scenarios, but they depend on them ~much more in a Ukrainian winter.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq is very controversial, even in the West (thank god for free speech and freedom of press) and I'd imagine many people on Ukraine's side also didn't agree with the second Iraq war. Might be different in the US, but it's certainly the feeling I get in Europe, even though many also simply have no opinion on Iraq.

uh... the same freedom of speech that is currently wanting to skin assange alive for making public war crimes commited by americans and yet instead of taking action against the actual aggressors, the messenger is being charged. cool....

btw, what i meant to say was, "iraq invasion" as you put might be "controversial" but there was no blowback of them as is being done to russia. the EU just either let US do its thing or even joined their side so yeah, controversial is short selling it.

Iraq, afghanistan, libya.... on and on. the US leaves destruction in its wake and its "just controversial" but no sanctions or arming the opposite side.

Oh, also, yemen has been decimated by saudis for years now but because they happen to be US allies, everyone just turns a blind eye. but iran needs "revolution" and "ukraine needs to be saved from russia"..

i am saying the two narratives do not depend on the ground realities, if people die or live. It just depends on the narrative that the US wants to push. That may be fine for the US or EU but everyone else just remembers.

Ukraine sent a sizeable military force to participate in squashing Shia fighters in south Iraq late 2003.

I think you're underestimating the resilience that people and systems have built up in countries where power is unreliable.

For example, I'd be willing to bet that most household don't even have candles or a battery operated flashlight.

When power has been nearly 100% reliable for as long as you've been alive, there's no reason for you to worry about those things and you don't build that resilience.

Someone in Alaska is probably more prepared for surviving a power outage than someone in Manhattan. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that life might continue as normal far longer in remote areas than it would in big cities in the event of a major outage.

If you are thinking rural alaska, possibly. Your typical US suburb is build of houses that don't do well without HVAC in neither the winter nor the summer. The amount of gasoline that needs to be spent to go shopping is high, and you can't expect gasoline to do well either during a grid collapse.

I don't have high expectations of Manhattan in the winter, but I'd bet on them over, say, Kenosha, or the Kansas City suburbs.

If it’s winter in the USA, houses could be wrecked since it could be well below freezing and the pipes could burst. Dangerously cold freezing temps also introduce a real risk of life and limb. Fires can be made, but if there’s a blizzard happening, keeping a flame going might be very difficult.

If it looks like your pipes are going to freeze, you bite the bullet and simply drain them, using the provided fittings and valves.

And, you add some antifreeze to your toilet, after you flush it to empty the tank.

This works if you live in a house, but lots of people live in apartment buildings where they don't have access to the necessary valves. The building's superintendent could theoretically do it, but it's a huge task for a large building.

> The building's superintendent could theoretically do it, but it's a huge task for a large building.

A huge task but a way bigger expense when pipes burst in any size of building.

> And, you add some antifreeze to your toilet, after you flush it to empty the tank.

If we're talking catastrophic, persistant, total grid collapse, you won't want a flushing toilet. It'll be time to start doing nutrient recycling instead of relying on industrially applied fertilisers to crops -- because that infrastructure depends largely on the other and will inevitably collapse too.

You'll be wanting a composting toilet.

> Coming from India and as someone who has lived, growing up (in the 90s), without power for hours and days...

Most people in the West will most probably catch a disease, if nothing else. Meaning if you live on the 8th floor, like I do, it means that if you have no running water for days and weeks on end then you cannot literally flush the shit down the toilet. Multiply that by the hundreds of thousands of people who live just like me in the same city (i.e. in apartment blocks) and that's how you get nasty diseases.

On the other hand my parents who live in the countryside 2 hours away from where I live will be just fine. They depend on wood for heating, the village where they live still has a functioning manual water-well or two, my parents grow most of their own food and have basic provisions for at least 6 months, they'll manage.

> On the other hand my parents who live in the countryside 2 hours away from where I live will be just fine.

Until the "have-nots", who until recently were really enjoying being the "haves", turn up with their guns.

That's when it'll all get very feudal and very nasty, as the people with guns suddenly realise that not only do they have power, they don't have those laws that used to stop them acting out whatever violent fantasies gun-owners enjoy, and shooting people will probably be the least of it ...

Have a nice apocalypse.

Living in New England, the blizzards knock out power in harsh cold conditions. A few years back we went without for over a week, and there was no water either since our water came from a well with an electric pump.

We built a fire in the fireplace, cooked over candles (and mostly ate food that didn't need to be cooked) and melted snow for more water. Lounged around in a big pile of blankets playing with our cats, reading books, and talking instead of using TV, computers, and cellphones. It was chilly, and there was a bit of media withdrawal, but it wasn't really all that bad.

But for sick or disabled people who need electricity for their oxygen machines or to run their electric wheelchairs or other things, it could be bad. And without a fireplace (which many people don't have, and we don't have now), it would likely have gotten too cold.

yeah, as my name suggests, i live in a place where "today", as in 23/11/2022 i have a 9 hour electricity cut "EVERYDAY" in near to 0C temperatures. It is winter and snowing most of the places. Heck, the places that are snowing get close to zero electricity for days and when it does come back, at best 3-6 hours.

People adapt to living in harsh conditions. as you said, "creature comforts" take a hit but you don't just die from having a collapse in the grid.

many days during bitter cold, our water pipes just freeze for weeks and we resort to using up saved up water (that we already save in big buckets as a habit) and ending up doing commando style wet tissue rub in place of a facewash, on and on....

It's not fun but when things improve, everyone laughs it off

People can adapt, but the real question is how quickly. If you go from virtually 100% grid availability to a complete long-term outage, many people won't be able to adapt quickly enough and will die, especially in large cities.

Depending on how long the outage is and how many people die, civilization doesn't necessarily collapse. But the adaptation process isn't going to be fun.

If you only go to rolling blackouts, people will most likely manage, except for those with certain health conditions. But that's a very different scenario, since it implies that there's continuous control over the grid.

Have people started using kangri again?

yep

Obviously, people would not die. What was the expectation? That we will die within a day after no power?

Electricity is not human's natural basic need like water and oxygen. But civilised life will be extremely terrible, society will collapse, that's the story.

As explained in the video, people can definitely die after just a day without electricity if not prepared: medicines that need refrigeration, connected to a machine for life support, freezing/heating to death (people do die in major heatwaves/blizzards regularly), etc.

Sure those are usually not "guys in their 20s-30s" that is the majority demography of HN (I'm not saying everyone ofc...), but there's a lot of people a few steps from dying that a blackout could make them tip over.

> connected to a machine for life support

I am pretty sure all current ICUs have backup power generators (both for equipment and Oxygen line pressure infrastructure). In addition most critical equipment used in hospitals has an independent UPS (ventilators, Infusion pumps etc.) that would extend it a few hours without power.

You would have to both have a formidable blackout and several days of lack of diesel supply for this scenario to materialize. Not saying it is impossible but definitely unlikely.

If you remove a noticable portion of the power generation, fuel reserves will be run down and depending on how many hours of power are lost per day, these places may not be able fully charge their UPSs each day.

Look to South Africa. They underinvested in their power generation for a few decades, and soon rolling blackouts became common and increased in frequency and severity to the point now where having no power each day is the normal (and it will only get worse from here)!

> large bowl shaped vessels

Would you happen to know what these are called (in any language)?

> No fridge (fresh food ftw)

Probably easier to say this when you live in the tropics. There's a reason humans are the only primates to make it outside of the tropics. Winter ain't easy! You'd definitely have to plan ahead and prepare your acorn flour and plant your tubers in places with cold winters

> India (in the 90s)

This is quite far from an apples-to-apples comparison. The article/video is intentionally very US and Canada-specific.

You can't exactly light a fire if you live in the middle of a large apartment complex.

Nevertheless, people will do it, if they are cold enough. Which will likely add to the problem, when you cannot call the firebrigade.

You CAN. You just really shouldn’t.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com