Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

> Why is it so hard to believe that the Earth is a [. . .]

Because of the wealth of evidence that tells us otherwise.

> can absorb shocks like CO2 emissions? It has supported life for millions of years.

'absorbing shocks' and 'supporting life' doesn't mean 'supporting human life comfortably'.

I don't understand the outrage about climate change, since reducing co2 emissions is mostly about being more energy efficient. How is that a terrible thing? My parents lived through 'Pea Soupers'[1] (a 4 day fog killed 4,000 people in London); we've seen the effects of gridlock and poor public transport; working on better solutions before the billions of China and India need a gas-guzzling car each doesn't feel like having any downsides.

[1] (http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/topics/perspect/london.h...)

View on HN

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be energy efficient but when that means telling developing nations like China and India that they are not allowed to burn as many fossil fuels as developed nations did when they were developing you're likely to get some pushback.

The only feasible solution to the problem is to find energy sources that produce at or above the levels the world requires today, but does so in a clean way. The only one that comes to mind for me is nuclear power.

I agree that geo-political realities make any global coordinated attempts to alter real inputs to various climate models unfeasible. As long as people want to see their children grow up to prosper, they won't want to sacrifice for a foreigner's objective. It is the same principle that has caused indolent civilizations to fall to foreign aggressors, the one that doesn't follow the pattern wins. And not everyone will believe the enlightened creed of less is better.

This is the thing I've never understood. Building a house that doesn't need to spend as much energy(money) heating and cooling is a better house. Just the same as a toilet that uses less water to flush is a better toilet. These aren't part of a UN plot to control your life, it's just a smart decision.

Secondly, regardless of what someone might think of climate change, you can't get around the fact that the Earth doesn't have infinite resources and is neither an infinite wastebasket. Something has to change about with how we do business to fix that fundamental issue.

The regulations and fees around building a house are ridiculous in California. I would love to build a house of my dreams, which would be about 1500sq ft, big garage, on 1+ acre and energy efficient. I could easily afford to buy the improved land in Northern California with cash right now (1-5 acres). But there is one problem, the local governments have made that impossible unless I'm rich. It's $60k+ just to break ground on a piece of land that already has a building pad, water meter and electricity, all due to fees. The Department of Transportation mitigation fee is $37k alone. I'm not sure if these are liberal or conservative policies, tighter regulations due to unions, or environmental regulations (see SF Bay Area regulations in Contra Costa county - sorry no source).

So in the mean time, my only choice of buying my first home is some piece of shit stucko house in the suburbs.

> absorbing shocks' and 'supporting life' doesn't mean 'supporting human life comfortably'.

And why do we think of ourselves as being superior to other past species? I generally don't like metaphors, but I remember reading somewhere (there were also a couple of animated representations in support) that we're more like a virus that has infected the Earth (its ecosystem etc.).

Looking at it through those lenses we have a couple of options left open until the host (Earth's ecosystem) ends up changing in such a way that will eliminate us. We can slow down the rate of infection by lowering our numbers or at least our growth rate. This has already started happening by itself in the more "advanced" countries. It will probably also happen in the rest of world at some point.

Or we can keep our numbers and numerical growth-rate but we'll need to start inflicting lesser and lesser pain on our host. Realistically, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Or we can increase our efforts in finding a new host, or at least a "disease transmitter" (or whatever the scientific term is) that will carry and support us until we stumble upon a host similar to Earth. Let's say a space-ship or something of the sorts. I know this looks too much like science-fiction right now, but if we're serious about our long-term survival as a species we need to start looking at it that way.

And why do we think of ourselves as being superior to other past species?

On superiority: other species don't have a conceptual view of the world. Every other species can't read and understand your argument, let alone refute it. This has ramifications on a political level: In order to have individual rights, you have to be capable of understanding what individual rights are. Imagine the ridiculous spectacle of taking a bear to court for mauling another animal, or a person.

What it comes down to is this: I want to live. Not just to metabolize and take up space like other animals do, but to live a full human life. That means having a huge impact on animals, no matter what I do (short of suicide). Even if I didn't eat meat, there are plenty of things that are crucial for human life (everything from agriculture to medical progress to displacing animals to make way for cities and factories). The choice is clear: either humans are first, or they don't live distinctly human lives at all.

I am a human being, and I take pride in that fact. Because I am a human being, I can create art, write software, further our knowledge of the world through science, enjoy literature, and a whole host of other things that no member of any other species (currently known) will ever do.

> In order to have individual rights, you have to be capable of understanding what individual rights are

That's ridiculous. That's like saying children or people with Down syndrome have no individual rights because they don't understand them.

On the contrary, since we have a superior intellect, we are capable of making moral judgements, and since we are capable, we are morally obliged to.

> The choice is clear: either humans are first, or they don't live distinctly human lives at all.

You have the right to live your life as you choose, of course, but not at the cost of destroying everything else. At some point, we need to consider the aggregate consequences of there being 6.9+ billion people all demanding to live "distinctly human lives". Unfortunately, for coming generations this idea may be a luxury.

That's ridiculous. That's like saying...

I agree, there is a problem with that sentence.

However, I'm not sure that it helps your argument much. People with Down syndrome are still human beings - with the ability to form concepts and speak language. Although they don't understand as much about the world as you and I do, they certainly understand a great deal more than any bear would. (Also they won't maul you.)

since we have a superior intellect, we are capable of making moral judgements, and since we are capable, we are morally obliged to

I have a different view: in order to survive and thrive, each individual has to make moral judgements. That which furthers a particular person's life is the good (and he ought to choose it, if he wants to live), and that which harms it is the evil.

At some point, we need to consider the aggregate consequences of there being 6.9+ billion people all demanding to live "distinctly human lives".

Do you realize that "aggregate consequences" include the longest lifespans in human history (in industrialized nations)? A steady decline in climate-related deaths (which have fallen 98% in the past century)? The vast quantity and variety of food available at low prices at grocery stores? The ability to go across the continent in a matter of hours, safely? Need I go on?

> Do you realize that "aggregate consequences" include the longest lifespans in human history

No, that is what I meant by aggregate consequences. What you describe is the cause, or at best merely the current situation.

My point is that 6.9+ billion all thinking selfishly about their own right to live full lives leads to the modern equivalent of the tragedy of the commons.

50-60 years ago, we could reasonably argue that the most important right for a human being was self-realization. At this point, unfortunately, a single modern life contributes so much to the very destruction of the world -- in fact, even owning a moderately-sized dog contributes to the destruction of the world -- in a way that did not apply to previous generations, and that self-realization can no longer include the level of material wealth and, frankly, consumerist squandering that the current generations are built upon.

For example, the "vast quantity" of food "at low prices" you describe exist at the detriment of someone else in the world. If everyone on the planet had access vast quantities of food at low prices, in today's market system, then the world's resources would be depleted at an unsustainable (or rather, more unsustainable that today) rate.

Your world view seems extremely simplistic and naive. I sincerely hope it's not representative of the typical HN liberartian. Libertarianism is about liberty, true, but not liberty at a cost to society.

squandering that the current generations are built upon.

What is your basis for determining what constitutes "squandering"? Does wearing machine-washed clothes qualify? Buying new clothes so you feel good about the way you look? How about using a dishwasher to wash dishes? What about having a pet dog? How about building new homes, spacious enough so you have room to pursue hobbies and keep rooms from being cluttered and overwhelming?

For example, the "vast quantity" of food "at low prices" you describe exist at the detriment of someone else in the world.

You have offered no evidence to support this. Ad hominems ("extremely simplistic and naive") won't cut it here.

> You have offered no evidence to support this.

Because I assumed it's common knowledge. Take a look at any of the countries that supply most of the world with food, natural resources, etc. Most of them are not anywhere near the first world in terms of wealth, living standards, etc. for the local population, and yet they are the major providers.

> What is your basis for determining what constitutes "squandering"?

Most of human activity could be classified as squandering. We don't need most of the stuff that we have or consume. And yet it's very hard to give it up for the benefit of everyone else.

> Ad hominems ...

Not an ad hominem considering I spent the preceding paragraphs pointing out how your opinions were simplistic and naive.

It's not whether we can think of ourselves as better. If we want to be concerned with nature's laws, then the fittest survive to propagate genes. Viruses don't contemplate their own navel and whether what they are doing is good for the rest of life on earth.

I have been reading Dawkin's "The Magic of Reality", and one chapter explains that about 140 million years ago, our common ancestor was basically shark-like fish. Everything else is related to us, and they have to survive on their own merits.

It could very well be that if nature "intends" anything in evolution, it is to sort out the genetic capacity for adaption, in which case humanity has that in spades. Our main competitors are insects, molds, bacteria and viruses. As far as complex organisms (chordata) go, we top the list in success (though we are outnumbered by worms, and they represent more biomass than us in aggregate).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com