Comment by addcommitpush | Hacker News Reader

Comment by addcommitpush | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The main thing that irked me is that the book focuses on technical solutions as if that's what we're missing (carbon coin! pumping water from under ice sheets! etc.) but completly glosses over the actual consequences.

To piggyback on the rest of this thread, people like meat and don't want to stop eating lots of meat. People are not going to like things that make them stop eating meats, whether it's governement buying out producers, a carbon tax, a carbon quota, whatever.

"Ministry of the Future" is full of stuff like "and the central bankers could reshape the economy, so they did by doing XYZ" as if "XYZ" was important but barely discusses the fact that "reshaping the economy" might upset lots of people. How were they convinced to give up air travel, cars, etc?

> People are not going to like things that make them stop eating meats, whether it's governement buying out producers, a carbon tax, a carbon quota, whatever.

I think the point of the book is that when the consequences are serious enough, it pushes significant social and behavioral change that people would not consider or accept otherwise. It's hard for us to imagine how society could actually change so drastically, but when people have been through a crisis of immense proportions, they think differently. India completely transforming its governance structure seems implausible but only because we haven't experienced 20M people dying at once from a preventable cause. These kind of events are triggers for social revolutions. We've seen this in history.

Sure, but then the story is about 1. the Indian heatwave and 2. the transformation; whether the transformation came about through carbon coins or carbon quotas or whatever is a detail. But it's the focus of the book.

Right; that was my takeaway.

the eco-terrorism was an interesting aspect that I hadn't thought of before, but actually seems quite plausible

I think in the book those people were convinced to give up air travel by the eco-terrorists known as the Children of Kali shooting commercial airliners out of the sky, and not shooting down cleaner alternatives like airships. A persuasive argument, to be sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com