rajanaccros

Capitalism is literally evil based on first principles [0]. The fact that you have swallowed the "capitalism is the only thing that is good in this world pill" is the result of 500 years of propaganda.

> Sounds like a good thing! More people getting their needs met.

And less of everything else getting their needs met. It seems like you have a very dualistic view that humans are somehow outside the realm of ecology. Infinite growth is literally impossible in a finite system. And is a core tenet of capitalism. I really don't know what else to tell you at this point.

You are basing all of your arguments on capitalism being the solution to itself, which is the problem.

> As it turns out, people do value nature etc but only after their basic needs are fulfilled.

The problem with capitalism is that once basic needs are met, companies need won't be met - the growth imperative. Profit means taking more than what you give. It is the sole idea of what capitalism is built on. And it has appropriated nature as a means to this end. So what happens then? Artificial scarcity, more manipulation, more marketing all to sell people what they don't need.

It seems to me that you have latched onto an idea, and you will argue anything to fit that narrative. I have no idea where these arguments are coming from that degrowth means that people are not getting their needs met. Do you have sources to back up any of what you are saying? It just seems so synthetic to me.

Degrowth is removing the profit motive for the sole benefit of reinvestment and accumulation to continue growing. It does not mean that the market economy goes away. It does not mean that people do not have their needs met. It means that capitalism as a religion is finally put to an end. That we are able to subsist on finite resources instead of eliminating everything that we depend on for survival. And to use your beloved's terminology, a (positive) market externality would allow species to thrive without the material extraction of their habitat that you have placed a positive value on for some reason (eg. "Sounds like a good thing!").

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#Enclosur...

The study I linked on The Limits of Growth did not predict 15 years. They predicted between 2030 and 2040. The original authors of that study have reasserted just last year that they still believe it to be true. IPCC and the nature study I linked have predicted collapse in the same time frame. So I am not sure the doomers that you are referencing were credible. However, I place my trust in science. The fact that scientists are literally screaming that we are headed towards extinction in the time frame I mentioned, the fact that we have lost 70% of species since 1970, and other data backing up the claims is enough for me to be convinced. I am not sure what it would take for you to be convinced.

I think we are talking past each other on what is meant by degrowth. Degrowth means not tying the success of nations and people to that of GDP YoY. It is not sustainable. What I mean by degrowth is removing the growth imperative from economy and switching to a sustainable economy. The studies have shown (referenced in Hickel's book) that material consumption goes up with technological innovation. This means that the more efficient are technology becomes we don't use it to sustatain, we us it to grow. More products, more material extraction, more profits, more reinvestment - all to grow. Degrowth means to move to a sustainable economy while preventing the death of humans and other biodiversity. But we have to rethink things that are "not to be questioned" (eg. capitalism, Platonic dualism, etc).

So I am confused by the meaning of degrowth you are referencing because the definition I am using is the antithesis of murder. We want to save the planet, and hence all life that exists within it. So I hope that comes across, because degrowth does not mean collapse of materials needed to sustain life, but it does re-imagigening the profit above all mindset that is de facto in our economies.

Yes I use AC. And no, I live well outside my comfort level and well within the material consumption guidelines for being a person that is doing something about this the environmental issues on this planet.

Your line of questioning is disingenuous and utterly lowbrow. Do better.

You actually could not be more wrong. Degrowth is the only thing that is going to solve our issue. That does not meaning cutting off food to populations, that means not maximizing profit as the only imperative to living. Your solution is technical, as many naive people believe, but will not solve the issue. We have planetary boundaries and "renewables" and nuclear will not solve those issues. More AC, means for CFCs that will still impact the environment. More growth means more extraction for wind/solar and other technologies that will impact the environment. These are not solutions to our issue.

Nothing else is working. Alarmism is supposed to get people to actually act, because otherwise they take your (ignorant) positions on sitting back and keep growing. The next idea you have for a great startup, a way to make money, something for your individual advancement, please go back to imperative #1 -- nothing is going to matter as we kill everything on this planet.

People become really defensive when they hear they have to change due to climate catastrophe. I get it. It's not fair. But it is necessary. If people read the alarmist language (not just from posters like me, but alarmist language from scientists who tend to use neutral language in their reports), then they will have to deal with the fact that the have a direct causal link to our children's and the next generation's death due to their inaction. At that point, the person is not just ignorant, but sociopathic. If we continue on this path, it will be humanity's ruin.

I really don't agree with this. And I am not against nuclear. I am for any action that will restructure our society that is more reciprocal with the environment. The world will not change for the better with 60+% of species extinction, wet bulb temperatures and not enough power to cool will affect and kill millions of people N/S 30deg of the equator.

My alarmist talking points it to actually engage people like you and who have similar thoughts that think they can't do anything. You absolutely can. And it is time to be alarmist. Not being so is not working.

My point is to work to restructure society at any level you can, to educate, and to stop this myth of perpetual growth GDP as the only indicator of success. It is killing everything.

> E.g. Siberia becoming fertile. Maybe even Sahara becoming green again!

We have a perfectly good world as is, and you want to gamble everything on this?

Yes. I did quit my job and am looking for climate careers actively through climatebase.org and climacareers.com (not associate with either but where I have been searching).

I have transitioned to veganism, raise the AC of my house to a very high level to where I am spending $7 per week, bought a bike to commute around the city, have stopped buying clothes and am now buying only through thrift stores, reading (and trying to educate) everyone I can on this subject.

Reports released by IPCC and other organizations [0] indicate that we have 15 years to take drastic action on the environment. This tracks with the extremely accurate prediction from The Limits to Growth [1] published in 1972.

If we do not take action on climate _now_ then _nothing_ is going to matter.

We will enter into an irreversible feedback loop that causes human extinction, yet it won't be apparent until it is literally on the doorstep for people to realize.

If you are not quitting your job and working to advance the existential threat of climate change and the main driver of the catastrophe (capitalism and perpetual growth) then you are wasting your (and your children's) time.

An excellent book on what needs to be done is Less is More by Jason Hickel [2]. This is the only problem that matters since literally existence depends on solving it. The time for deep concern is over. Action is needed and it is needed now. Education, degrowth, reuse, technology. So put everything else aside or you are laboring (and living) for nothing.

[0]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01157-x

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

[2]: https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more

Certainly begs the question... are corporations and governments inextricable?

I guess it would depend on the reason for denial to a patient. If it is solely because it isn't regulatory approved yet then that doesn't seem sufficient. If the drug was provided for free from the pharma company it would be a faster path to a human trial which would be a win/win for all involved with the only possible negative for a person who doesn't have anything to lose.

> only reveals a lack of self-awareness, arrogance, and over-confidence

Says one with the hubris to decide what is right for me.

A flippant dismissal deserves a flippant reply.

> Because capitalism is the only system

This is what largely I am arguing against. I think the benefits of capitalism have been proven, but the negatives are largely brushed aside. I think this form of capitalism is dangerous (and I should have been more explicit about that in my original comment). My original comment was to get rid of publicly traded companies and remove wall street altogether. Private companies can continue to exist and compete but the profit motive to solely deliver growth and profit to public shareholders has distorted the whole system into pro-forma income sheets at the best and to outright devastation and exploitation at the worst. Private companies would be largely in check because they wouldn't grow unchecked by raising capital they don't have by going public. In so doing, they wouldn't be "in debt" (overloaded non-technical sense of debt) to shareholders. This would lead to more sustainability and less growth over everything mindset. The knock on effects I mentioned would contribute to a more just and fair system.

That said, I am not an economist, but I would like to see this world exist for future generations. And this economic system isn't it.

> You can't give credit all the credit to capitalism. Communism destroyed what was the fourth-largest lake in the world, which was so big that it was called a "sea"[0].

The age-old adage that if it is not capitalism, it must be communism.

> The age-old adage that anyone opposed to your viewpoint is either stupid or evil.

Which one are you? Sure my take was reductionist, but you are using my critique to distract is disingenuous. You are trying to defend capitalism by saying that you are not stupid or evil. If I have missed an adjective to describe people who have not discovered this ruthless system of destruction what would it be? Ignorant? Willfully Ignorant?

How is it the driving force behind everything comfortable? If another system was in place are you saying that we would not have had progress towards human comfort? And it seems you are assuming that I wouldn't give up a comfortable life for a more fair and just system with less market externalities? If your measure for success is comfort, then you are the exact person I am trying to convince that we need something else.

> I don’t think any CEO can be moral if your primary obligation is “shareholder value”.

I am really glad I am starting to see a lot more posts here on HN with regard to this fact. Capitalism is literally destroying everything and has proven itself not to be a viable system for long term sustainability and a healthy society and ecosystem.

Some of the smartest people on the internet aggregate on HN and some have still not figured this out. Either because 1) They haven't taken the time to look into the n-order knock on effects that are produced by capitalism in it's current form, or 2) they are too interested in self-enrichment to make any changes to behavior for their own comfort and convenience.

We should get of publicly traded corporations and Wall Street should disappear in my opinion. It is that publicly traded shareholder value that drives all the crimes against society/environment in this late stage. However, we are up against a severely selfish and entrenched minority with a ton of power who won't let that happen ... at the cost of everything.

The trend we are seeing across the tech industry and business in general is to know/consolidate/extract/exploit. Even users who pay now are still "the product". Who are the buyers? Intelligence agencies, both governmental and private who have different aims, but with the same intermediate goal is to know everything about you.

The only (ONLY) motive is profit. Growth, growth, growth above all costs at the expense of people and the environment. Jeff jumped into this thread to try to color it with verbiage such as:

> we came to the conclusion that the world doesn't need more communications, it needs better communications. More relevant. More effective.

This is another way to habituate and legitimate the exploitation of users for those few who profit. An example, is the A2P 10DLC registration that is being forced on users of the product that will charge a registration fee, a vetting fee, and a recurring monthly cost. From what I can tell, there is no legal basis forcing this. The Telco cartel got together and came up with a way to make more money off of you. Sure they will talk about it in terms of "improving your experience" and "stopping spam texts". While there may be a kernel of truth in there, that is not the main reason. Go back to rule number 1: profit, profit, profit.

It is a shame that the Telcos are strong arming the CSP middlemen to make them abide by these rules or not deliver their messages. And of course that rolls down to the end users.

But I think the bigger issue here is that they need to know exactly who you are in terms of registration. Blocking VOIP numbers for OTP verification, etc etc. Why do you think this is? Because they will take all of the data you provide, the metadata you produce and sell it to third parties for profit at your expense and without your consent (or otherwise wrapped up in a "privacy policy" that is too long that no one reads).

None of what I am saying is new, it is the same old playbook that most people are ignorant of. I suggest reading The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff for a deeper study of this topic.

If you would like to refute any of this @jeffiel I would welcome it. I find the forced registration of A2P 10DLC absolutely horrifying. The trend for everybody is to put them into a "pre-crime" bucket. In doing so, we lose all privacy on the web, and with it the web itself.

Edit: I don't know Jeff and I am not making my comment about a personal attack or a character (mis)representation. My point is to look at trends in general, at the decline of privacy for the growth of profit, and how language is used to characterize it as something else selling it as you are getting a better experience through personalization, relevancy, effective, etc. Zuboff touches on this in her book and it is recently in my mind so my comments are coming through the lens of this recent discovery. However, the larger anti-privacy trend and centralization across the web is not new, and I stand that we are all losers if we allow this trend to continue.

I proposed a solution in another comment that had a "side vote" feature as the disaggreement/unpopular option (since we rand out of directions for arrows).

As far as I know moderators are not responsible for most of the spam that comes through. As you said it can be plentiful. I have been caught in spam (other) filters many times just for using tor browser (thanks HN!). We already have spam filters available with spam trends that are pretty discernable that can do the bulk of the work.

There are other ways to make this work through some heuristic that auto identifies a comment and starts it below a visible threshold. What spammers are not good at, is spending time to go edit comments and content to evade these filters.

My point is that moderation is extremely limited. Review illegal content flagged comments, check appeals for false positives of a spam filter. All other content should it make it in the thread can be moderated by the community.

I think the same logic can apply to your scenario. If it is off topic it gets downvoted by the community and disappears to hidden. The relevant data gets voted up to the top as again decided by the community.

This would inevitably reward first commenters, but that is the situation anyway with current thread voting. I think later commenters as long as not downvoted past a threshold would stay visible with an even(ish) vote count to give those comments the visibility to rise.

What about comments that people disagree with that are still on topic but controversial? Well, we are running out of directions so they should get a side vote. Downvotes to explicitly send to hidden as not relevant (spam, off topic, etc), upvotes for agreeable comments base on popularity, side votes for relevant but disagreeable.

The community should moderate itself. If a comment like the parent appears it should be downvoted by the community to hidden. The only reason for moderation is to remove things that are illegal. Therefore, all speech is acceptable provided it is not illegal content. A simple flag of "illegal" should be provided that will be marked as review by a moderator.

The problem with moderation is the same as the problem with representative democracy. Moderators become entrenched and yield power unilaterally eventually not representing the community. I can't tell you how many times I have been banned, shadow banned, comments removed, not allowed to participate, etc due to the fact that a moderator decides what is best.

Edited: to remove ambiguity

Ohh I see. Not a replacement for process based site level isolation. I just wasn't wrapping my head around that. Makes much more sense now. Thanks for the explanation.

How does this affect process isolation? If only some components can be sandboxed at this fine grained level, aren't we still subject to process isolation to sandbox everything else? It would seem like one still has to run fission.autostart true to isolate the components that cannot be compiled in this way, therefore not gaining the benefit of less overhead as stated in the article.