Hacker News Reader

Comment by gottorf | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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?

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.

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.

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

This sounds like an assumption without obvious proof.

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

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com