Hacker News Reader

Comment by _heimdall | Hacker News Reader

There still one good choice, just use less power. We're collectively running in circles trying to find a replacement for oil that allows us to continue to increase our energy use.

That's an extremely difficult challenge and one that paints us into a corner. The underlying problem is that energy use and GDP are directly correlated, and modern economics don't allow for a possibility of decreasing GDP. As long as we refuse to change that assumption we're left only with a future of using more energy from a different source.

I don't really think its a meaningful difference long term where we cause the environmental damage. If we really want to make a change we collectively need to embrace a future where energy isn't limitless and growth isn't the goal in and of itself.

View on HN

That could require people to die.

Also you cannot make people who are poor not want to better their lives even if it costs in the long term. How would you force them? They are going to try one way or another and all we can do is find a better way.

Any solution could lead to some deaths, as could doing nothing.

There's plenty of power use that isn't necessary and could be cut with little or no meaningful impact. More so for the poor, they likely aren't part of the wasted power consumption that would even be the low hanging fruit.

In the US particularly, we seem to strive to build large single family homes. Those are a massive waste of resources, from the materials to build and maintain the structure to the power it takes to run the home. We don't have to travel nearly as much as we chose to. We don't need LLMs, technology with 2-3 year lifespans, or "fast fashion" cloths that fall apart in a season. We don't need vacations that include flying to some far away place, cruise boats, or roller coasters.

Sure there are sacrifices in giving up any of these, but any risk of deaths would be second or third order effects related to economic impact. There's just so many things we could easily give up if we cared to without risking serious impacts before we have to worry about risking leaving the poor behind or directly requiring deaths in some way.

The fact that those things are not given up shows that people, at least for now, care about having them. Going back to societies that were very prescriptive of what everyone can or cannot have because of some central decision on "need" were not necessarily the nicest places to live in - not sure we should attempt to go there again.

It could just easily shows that people don't have choice. After all, state and local authorities decreed how much parking there should be and how zoning works. Meanwhile, the feds provided funding for an interstate system in which highways destroyed whole neighborhoods in the process.

Our choices are shaped by the available options people have, sometime very little choices at all.

Given that some countries are richer or poorer than other, and some countries are better at public transits than other, I find it hard to believe that the status quo can be justified by people merely making 'choices'.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Perhaps for some things, but, for example, holidays far away are a choice, buying a large house is a choice, buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Buying a large house is a 'choice' in the sense that much of middle housing is illegal and that political structures aren't designed to maximize the efficient use of land.

There's a reason why Georgism is in vogue these days.

buying lots of clothes is a choice.

Ah, yes. Powered by a system that is designed to exploit brains for profit. It's like eating junk food is a choice. Or not exercising is a 'choice'.

They are useless excuses that justify the status quo rather than empowering us to do something about it.

Wait, are you arguing that eating junk food and not exercising aren't really choices?

I hope I'm just misreading sarcasm there, but they are very much choices and that itself should be empowering because people can just as easily make a different choice.

I hope I'm just misreading sarcasm there, but they are very much choices and that itself should be empowering because people can just as easily make a different choice.

If choice is so easy, anyone can pick up a textbook about mathematics, barring deficiency in cognitive capacity, become knowledgeable about mathematics. That doesn't happen not because people are stupid, but because the task is genuinely hard.

If choice is so easy, you would be able to able to choose to not to eat for three days and achieve that. For some people, it is extremely difficult. For others, that is easy. I have experienced both situations.

Real freedom, then, is to understand that your own mind has their own cause and effect and how to manipulate that to achieve 'freedom of choice', and the corresponding training to be able to do so.

To have whole societies exercising, then, is to understand the causal factors involved and the knobs needed to achieve that, and the organizational capacity to do so.

That is why to say that you 'have a choice' to not exercise or exercise is a defeatist attitude and to consign whole group of people to early death. What people need is not 'choices' but solutions to achieve those choices.

I myself continue to struggle. I have lost weight and then regained. There are time in which I can exercise for hours. There are times in which I achieved physical fitness that I at time I never thought I could. I will keep trying, but clearly I do not yet have mastery of my own mind.

> If choice is so easy, anyone can pick up a textbook about mathematics, barring deficiency in cognitive capacity, become knowledgeable about mathematics. That doesn't happen not because people are stupid, but because the task is genuinely hard.

You're conflating choice with a much more complex situation that raises questions of how people learn, how skills relate to nature versus nurture, and personal interest and motivations. I'm not arguing that avoiding junk food or choosing to exercise are easy, only that they are choices.

Its really interesting to me that you take the view of choice as defeatist while I see the exact opposite, that the view of a lack of choice is defeatist. We both clearly have considered this in the past and feel strongly about our view, great reminder that people can seriously and genuinely consider the same situation and land on exactly opposite positions.

You can't make difficult choices you want unless you understand and trained to manipulate your own mind.

A society can't become healthier, even if they are willing, unless they understood the steps they need to take to become healthier.

Choice are meaningless if you can't do them, which is why they are traps.

I'm not really sure how you even describe those as choices, or why you think people are destined to eat junk food.

There are absolutely situations where economics or geographic limitations leave some with little choice beyond junk food. Beyond that, eating junk food is a choice. The beauty of choice is that we are offered the freedom to make it. Maybe you never want to eat junk food, or only occasionally, or maybe you really enjoy it and prefer to live on a junk food diet. Its a choice, and one that can be made today and changed tomorrow.

Viewing things like exercise and diet as a non choice is insanely dis-empowering. I want to know that I can choose to change if its important to me, I don't want to feel powerless to genetics or the society in which I was born.

It's not that I think people are destined to eat junk food, it's that describing what you eat as a choice is shallow and useless.

A choice is only meaningful if you are able to implement it. Only with knowledge, training, and technology can you overcome the deficit. Combining that by changing the structure and incentives of society will amplify that effect.

If people are continuously trying and failing to implement exercise and weight loss programs, it suggests that our knowledge and tools are incomplete. If we reach the point that obesity and 'lifestyle' related issues are a non-problem or can be overcome successfully long term, only then it becomes a meaningful choice.

This is why I emphasized knowledge and skills, cause and effect over freedom of choices. Obesity is not just a problem on an individual level, but also on a societal level. If you want to solve them, you must manipulate all the levels of causality.

Middle housing is illegal? Where is that or rather what is that then?

If you want to believe that humans are just misled in a way that is fine, but you might find that some of your ideas about the status quo turn out to be wrong or at least that the status quo has few thousand years in it you need to overcome.

Middle housing is illegal? Where is that or rather what is that then?

Middle housing is a type of housing density that sits somewhere between high rises and single family housing. Vox media has a good article on it.[1]

but you might find that some of your ideas about the status quo turn out to be wrong or at least that the status quo has few thousand years in it you need to overcome.

Modern status quo is vastly different to how urban planning was done in the past. Maybe they have a good reason, or maybe not, or maybe they were a good idea for a time but became obsolete.

1. https://www.vox.com/videos/2021/8/17/22628750/how-the-us-mad...

Not sure how much of an issue that is outside of the US.

For sure urban planning has changed all a lot in the last 2000 years, but I actually meant more human desires around "luxuries".

Oh I'm specifically not saying a central authority should dictate what we can and can't have, I'd be very against that.

My point is only that we as individuals could give up quite a few things that would collectively make a good dent in lowering energy use without ruining society, well-being, etc.

Poorer countries (I am from one) will want higher living standards and there are a lot of people in that condition. I think they will condone sea mining to reach them.

> There still one good choice, just use less power.

All of civilization has basically been about allowing higher per capita energy usage. To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development.

If our goal is human flourishing, then our focus should be on enabling yet higher levels of energy usage per person, preferably with as few side-effects as possible. Fossil fuels have been (and will continue to be for a while) the least-evil source of energy for humanity. I look towards a future powered by nuclear and renewables with better energy storage technology, perhaps even to a degree where energy is effectively limitless.

Your view, I'm afraid, is incompatible with continued human flourishing.

> To say "just use less power" means going to a lower level of human development.

This sounds like an assumption without obvious proof.

This sounds like you don't know anything about history of human civilization. All improvements to the standard of living come from using more power per capita.

It can also be true that improving energy efficiency will be good, and forgoing harmful energetic activity is also good, such as reducing the number of cars on the road.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for.

You think that reducing number of cars will not reduce the standard of living? Being forced to ride a bike in a snow is surely an improvement unwashed masses are yearning for.

Of course. If you ever drove downtown during rush hours, it is a miserable experience.

If you want to see people riding bike, see youtube videos about Finland. If you have the right clothes, or the right infrastructure and support, a lot of things are suddenly possible and easy.

But of course, noticed that I said reduction of cars, not a total elimination of cars.

We do not need a car for any and all activity. There will be a time and place when you need to haul large amount of materials, for example.

You are advocating riding a bike instead of a car in Finland of all the places? And doing it all year round? And as supporting argument you point to YouTube videos? I'm speechless...

Not Just Bike has a good video on it.[1] Of course, if you don't think youtube videos can't ever be credible sources, then I am not going to be able to convince you of anything.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU

I don't think its quite that simple, I wouldn't assume that car use is always a net positive for standard of living and more cars are always better. Reducing cars would likely reduce car fatalities and pollution, for example.

Vehicles are also expensive and can be stressful to maintain and pay for. Choosing to remove a cat from your life and finding a way to make that work can be a net positive long term. Obviously that wouldn't work for everyone, but if it works for some then we have to accept that more cars don't always equal higher standard of living.

a barrel of oil is equivalent to around twenty-five thousand man hours of work. sacrificing that would result in a colossal hit to quality of life. and ironically, the additional people needed to mitigate that might actually result in more ecological impact, to say nothing of broadening a global underclass of widget producers

we can and should use our limited hydrocarbons to bootstrap our way to higher-potential energy sources. but "using less" is a misguided assumption

We can use less cars and use more trains. Energy efficiency is also an addition in the crease of available energy source, since said energy sources can be deployed to more productive, less harmful processes.

Walking is also good, and it would probably do us good to personally increase humans' basal metabolism.

trains are exclusively fixed point-to-point. many cities are not constructed for walking and/or are 110 in the summer. respectfully, screw walking.

trains are exclusively fixed point-to-point. many cities are not constructed for walking and/or are 110 in the summer. respectfully, screw walking.

Changing society is hard isn't an excuse to continue the status quo, nor some edge case you envisioned is an excuse to not encourage walking, cycling, or public transit whenever possible.

no, i'm saying 1. transportation is only a certain amount of our infrastructure and the cars can be electrified, and 2. your paradigm assumes we hold the environment above people's quality of life. i do not.

That's only true if you hold the environment to be negatively correlated with quality of life.

It's not automatically true that having cars increase the quality of life.

Quality of life is relative. I live on a piece of land on the scale of 50-100 acres and currently have a small herd of cows, a few pigs, and chickens. We don't have a tractor and have no intention of buying heavy equipment. Most people that notice this think we're crazy and need to get a tractor to make this work.

Sure some of our daily tasks would be easier, but we simply don't want to own or maintain a tractor and appreciate a hard day's work.

I can say first hand that my quality of life is greater by skipping the diesel-powered tool that most would consider a must, and I'm well aware that most in my position would consider having the tractor as a quality of life improvement. Neither view is wrong, they just require more context and a recognition that quality of life is relative.

Your argument hinges on two assumptions, both that I'd argue are flawed.

First, you're assuming that our current use of power is efficient and there isn't enough unnecessary or inefficient use of power to make a difference. Do you believe that there aren't changes we could make to reduce power use without noticeably reducing human well-being?

Second, you're assuming that increased growth is always a good thing and developing more stuff by using more power is always an improvement. There are changes that consume more power without making a clear improvement to human flourishing, and worse there is progress that consumes more power while actually making our lives worse.

Why do you believe that power consumption can't be reduced without meaningfully reducing human well-being or happiness?

Walking would improve lifestyle of most humans on Earth.

Most humans on Earth walk all day, every day, even when they really don't want to, because there isn't an alternative. Almost all of that subset yearn to go to developed countries that don't require them to walk in the rain or sweltering heat, carrying heavy burdens.

Walking would improve the lifestyle of the ~1% of humans that live in developed countries and press keys for a living. Everybody else would like to sit in a car every now and then.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: I'm advocating for the increased ability of humans to harness more energy per capita, not that increased actual consumption of energy per capita is always a good thing (though I'd say the latter is almost always true).

That conscious privation in the face of abundance is good for you in certain cases does not mean that as a matter of public policy, we should strive for privation instead of abundance.

"just use less" is a very prescriptive line that i rarely find accompanied by concrete ideas on how to do so without huge reductions in welfare and quality of life. past some point, we must consider how highly we value the habitat of a rare lemur or something weighed against the benefit to conscious beings

the above does not exclude a reduction in our hyperconsumerist tendencies. i live in a pretty minimalist fashion and 90% of what i own was passed down from relatives or picked up secondhand. i am somewhat baffled that more people don't do this, if for no other reason than cost savings

Walk more. Drive less. Get rid of parking minimums. Easier said than done of course, but that's politics for you.

We have very good reason to reduce environmental pollution now, because pollution literally kill people, and not some obscure species that only a few people are aware of.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com