Comment by AnthonyMouse | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnthonyMouse | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It is clearly possible to operate at the level of zero carbon emissions. People did it for thousands of years before the industrial revolution and modern technology runs just fine on renewable or nuclear energy.

Since the emissions per person can be zero, any level of emissions reduction can be achieved with any number of people, you just need more emissions reductions per person when you have more people. "We should have both more emissions reductions and more people" is thereby an entirely consistent position.

More than that, emissions reductions generally require R&D and have some economic cost, but an aging population is economically weaker and has fewer resources to spare. Meanwhile older people who aren't going to live much longer and have no descendants have less incentive to care about what happens in the future and spend those scarce resources on things like emissions reductions. People having more kids avoids that death spiral.

Also, I mean, who are we trying to save the world for?

It sounds like you’re in favor of change via top down regulations, so you’re not arguing for bottom up reduction of consumption. My point is, people who do argue for reducing consumption must consider the fact that consumption hinges on consumers, so either they should adopt or they have rejected their own premises

I personally take the view that policing individual consumption is meaningless, but I still notice the doublethink required for those that have that view to rationalize their choices to not adopt.

> who are we saving the world for?

The future, regardless of whether those people are genetically derived from our selves. Having your own children is often viewed as a selfless act, which is weird, because if you do that when you could adopt an orphan, and if we’re being honest, then it’s one of the most selfish things you can do.

> It sounds like you’re in favor of change via top down regulations, so you’re not arguing for bottom up reduction of consumption.

It could be achieved either way. If you want to e.g. replace gasoline cars with electric cars, you could have some kind of government incentives, or you as an individual could just choose to buy an electric car and put solar panels on your roof to charge it.

> people who do argue for reducing consumption must consider the fact that consumption hinges on consumers

But it doesn't. The rate of consumption is number of consumers times consumption per consumer. You can increase number of consumers while reducing consumption per consumer and end up with a net reduction, as long as the latter is larger. Since consumption per person can get arbitrarily close to zero, it's entirely consistent to want to get there that way than by reducing the population, which has all kinds of terrible consequences.

> Having your own children is often viewed as a selfless act, which is weird

It costs a significant amount of money and primarily benefits someone else (the child). You have to forego a lot of luxury vacations and early retirement to pay for books and food and college.

> if you do that when you could adopt an orphan

The fertility rate is below the population-replacement rate. That includes the orphans. If the fertility rate was only the orphans, it would be far lower than it even is already and we would be completely screwed. Not only that, by your logic the orphans' parents are selfish too, but then who is it that you think should be having kids if the human race is not to go extinct?

> My point is, people who do argue for reducing consumption must consider the fact that consumption hinges on consumers, so either they should adopt or they have rejected their own premises

This argument is absurd and naive. Mass murder and your suicide would also reduce consumers. Clearly there are other factors to consider over and above the raw numbers, many of which are cultural and subjective.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m pretty much in favor of do no harm, which certainly excludes advocating or enacting murder or suicide.

Do no harm also means, if you think consumption is harmful then you do need to avoid opting into creating maybe 50-100 Years of extra consumption per child just for the satisfaction of knowing your genes will be doing the consumption.

Are there ever acceptable cultural or subjective reasons to excuse “rules for thee but not for me”?

Can the whole supply chain of modern technology operate with zero carbon emissions?

In terms of energy, certainly. Generate electricity with non-carbon sources, then use electricity. The main difficulty would be aviation, because current batteries are too heavy, but there you could use biofuels until someone comes up with something better.

You're left with things like concrete that emit CO2 from something other than burning fossil fuels. But none of those things are strictly required. There are alternatives to them with various trade offs. Some that are essentially a drop-in replacement, basically different kinds of cement that don't emit CO2, others that operate differently but get you the same result, like using entirely different building materials. The main reason these aren't already used is cost, but that doesn't mean you can't pay the cost, it just means nobody is going to do it voluntarily. It also doesn't mean that no one could come up with some new alternative with a lower cost going forward -- that sort of thing happens all the time.

Not entirely, but a considerable portion can. However, the modern supply chain has to be fully tracked down first, to uncover exactly where most emissions are coming from, and then focus on understanding how to decarbonise those sectors as much as possible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com