Hacker News Reader

Comment by Teever | Hacker News Reader

Maybe the issue with society is that we don't care about efficiency?

We throw away 1/3 of the food that we make. We're overweight and waste energy from carrying that excess weight.

We're less physically active as a result so we require motorized transport that is predominantly single passenger cars so we build all our infrastructure around cars which in turn causes us to be even more inactive and unhealthy.

This also leads to higher medical costs, lower productivity, and less satisfaction in life.

So maybe efficiency should be a priority. What do you think?

View on HN

>Maybe the issue with society is that we don't care about efficiency?

>We throw away 1/3 of the food that we make. We're overweight and waste energy from carrying that excess weight.

Throwing away food can be efficient. In fact, absent evidence to the contrary, we should expect that throwing away food (or buying/producing more) is the more efficient option out there, given that people aren't putting effort into conserving food. Remember, conservation isn't free. For instance it might be possible to reduce the amount of fruits that are bruised and thrown away, but that requires more packaging and more careful handling, which isn't free. At the household level, proper meal planning and inventory management can probably eliminate all food waste, but nobody wants to spend the mental effort into managing an ERP for their kitchen.

>We're less physically active as a result so we require motorized transport that is predominantly single passenger cars so we build all our infrastructure around cars which in turn causes us to be even more inactive and unhealthy.

You got cause and effect mixed up. People live in suburbs and drive around everywhere because they like the suburban lifestyle (eg. cheaper/bigger houses, "safer" and "quieter" neighborhoods), not because they're not too fat to live in 15 minute cities. Remember, suburbanization happened well before the obesity epidemic.

> We throw away 1/3 of the food that we make. We're overweight and waste energy in terms of carrying that weight.

But it's efficient in terms of working as a slave for the technological system, though. It means less time spent on life, more time spent on thinking about technology.

> We're less physically active as a result so we require motorized transport that is predominantly single passenger cars which in turn causes us to be even more inactive and unhealthy.

Again, quite efficient for the system.

You think people own cars because they’re unfit? Would it be more efficient for them to ditch their car and cycle 4 hours per day to and from work?

The most common number of passengers in a car is 1, but nearly all cars are big enough for 4.

Yes I think people become unfit from growing up in a car culture and then become dependent on cars for transportation because they can't conceive of a world where they don't require one for transportation because they're so unfit.

It's a wicked problem with no obvious solution.

They don't cycle.

In other advanced societies (say New York City), people catch public transport to go to work. Catching public transport usually involves a certain amount on walking, since the bus/metro stop is not usually outside your front door.

That's not how capitalism measures efficiency. It all comes down to profits. Everything else is bureaucracy and marketing. There just aren't any incentives to drive these macroecononic efficiency goals you mention.

So...down with capitalism?

Not exactly. Capitalism is just the optimal solution for technology when the primary driver of growth is people. But AI is likely to change that and then capitalism will be modified and done away with but the destruction will remain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com