6 ms·

We are in for a shtt-storm. But go over to Bloomberg news, and they're wondering why the Japanese won't make the tough cultural sacrifices needed to increase i

We are in for a shtt-storm. But go over to Bloomberg news, and they're wondering why the Japanese won't make the tough cultural sacrifices needed to increase immigration, to stave off stagnant GDP caused by declining population and the accompanying demographics. (I get the workers to non-workers issues in play. Even with that, I believe it is telling, which solutions are put forth. Increase immigration. Not, decrease consumption.) Seriously, our roads are sinking. Record temperatures. Record droughts. Record greenhouse gasses. But how many times were "jobs" talked about at the DNC and RNC? "Global warming"? We, are so, f-cked.

superswordfish 10y ago
It seems like we're discovering a bunch of technologies that involve removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere now (and even using it as a resource). That isn't the only problem gas, but I'm optimistic that we will solve the "greenhouse effect" problem through this sort of climate engineering before the real disaster of rising sea levels gets too far. In a century people will probably be freaked out by a host of issues we've barely even thought of today (things like the Kessler syndrome that are not so top-of-the-mind).
- vkou 10y ago
  The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. Either way, it would be far cheaper to switch our energy production to renewables, then to geo-engineer on a planet scale. We aren't doing that in any meaningful way. Instead we pat ourselves on the back for reducing US coal energy generation to 37%. Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas...
  - sliverstorm 10y ago
    Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas... It's still a huge improvement, cutting CO2 output by half and eliminating other byproducts.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Except that overall CO2 output has been steady since 2008. Yes, there has been GDP growth since then, which is great... But the atmosphere doesn't care about GDP. What it needs are reductions.
      - sliverstorm 10y ago
        Keeping CO2 output steady instead of rising with ever-growing population size & energy appetite is, I think, an important first victory. The work is by no means done, but Rome wasn't built in a day.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. Homes aren't the only thing destroyed by rising sealevels. Arable land that is under saltwater is a lot less arable.
    - vkou 10y ago
      Most arable land isn't coastal though - and most coastlines are urban. If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. As another poster mentioned, the land doesn't have to be underwater to become unusable, but rising sea levels have a limited reach.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > Most arable land isn't coastal though A very large share of arable land is at a low elevation above sea level along waterways; land distance from the coast doesn't control the effect of sea-level rise. > If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. Well, except that its impossible geographically to do that without also flooding inland arable areas. Flooding America's coastline also means flooding (among other prime agricultural areas) much of California's Central Valley.
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    > The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. A good chunk of arable land and aquifers will be affected by rising sea levels as well. Really, our only hope is somehow all that land that is too cold to farm now...becomes more practical to farm. :/
    - dharma1 10y ago
      James Lovelock, the inventor of Electron Capture Detector, which he used to discover CFC's, and the person behind the Gaia theory, predicts that only Canada, Northern Europe and Siberia will be habitable in the later part of this century. www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/james-lovelock-the-prophet-20071101
      - fweespeech 10y ago
        Yes but its more than just habitability. Soil condition/quality as well as availability of water, etc. is important for farming.
        dharma1 10y ago
        Very true - there will be a limit to what size of a population can be sustained by farming within those northern areas. Whatever that number is, it's probably not 9 billion people
mc32 10y ago
I agree climate change has to be taken seriously and we need to study ways to mitigate the effects of our GHG output. No doubt. On the Japan question. No, I think and hope they continue to be uniquely stubborn. Why? Because we are all going to be there (we would have been there if we'd be as strict as Latin American countries are about their own immigration). Japan can lead the way for us and for others on how to deal with this issue (population decline). Japan is in fact dealing with their issue head on by not importing workers. By not importing workers they are not defraying the issue. They are doing the opposite of dealing with consequences later.
- hx87 10y ago
  Besides, population decline could very well be a large part of the answer to the problem of automation and labor redundancy. Who cares if you have less workers if you /need/ less workers?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Besides, population decline could very well be a large part of the answer to the problem of automation and labor redundancy. Who cares if you have less workers if you /need/ less workers? Its only a short-term answer (sure, natural population contraction and population aging means your workforce to total supported population ratio is shrinking, which can delay the need to address the retooling society to deal with lower labor-hours:population requirements, but it only delays the need, and eventually creates other problems.)
- intopieces 10y ago
  In what way is importing workers "defraying the issue"? Also, why would the population of the US decline? White people aren't having babies like they used to, but other groups don't show the same trend. It's the reason why the US is on track to become a majority-minority country long before the original estimated 2050. California's already there. People are still clamorimg to get into the US, and fighting tooth and nail to stay here. You are the first person I've read that considers not importing workers a solution, rather than a symptom of cultural insularity that threatens to bring down their economy through the burden of an aging population.
hedgew 10y ago
Increased immigration from poor countries to rich countries will increase consumption and pollution. Third world aid has a similar problem. The more wealthy people become, the more they eat meat and pollute. Cases like Sweden where more than 90% of third world immigrants stay unemployed are likely the worst of all.
- immist 10y ago
  >Cases like Sweden where more than 90% of third world immigrants stay unemployed Do you have a source to back this claim?
  - 91bananas 10y ago
    Out of genuine curiosity, what if s/he doesn't?
  - hedgew 10y ago
    The real numbers are probably somewhat worse. There's a Swedish government report that has the best numbers, but I couldn't find it within a reasonable time. Swedish employment rates for natives and first-world immigrants are good, though. After one year, more than 99% are unemployed http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/162-000-kom-till-sverige-500-fick-jobb http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/162-000-kom-till-sverige-5... More than half of the unemployed in Sweden are immigrants http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nu-ar-fler-an-halften-av-de-arbetslosa-utrikes-fodda http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nu-ar-fler-an-halften-av-d...
antisthenes 10y ago
I usually find your sentiment to be buried somewhere deeper on most HN threads that touch on these issues. I'm honestly baffled at the endless optimism and belief of others in our ability to innovate and disrupt out of this crisis, whether it be technological advances or some market solution. Some people even go so far as to suggest that we'll be moving beyond this planet in the next 100 years and all resource problems will be solved. It's hard to reply to them without sounding snarky, but I can't help but wonder in what circumstances those people were raised with that line of thinking. They just sound completely ignorant of both history and basic physics when they make those statements.
kaybe 10y ago
Here is one little positive thought: At least there won't be an ice age, which, according to the timeline, should happen soonish (on geological timescales). An ice age would be very problematic too, and we've averted that easily.
- Diederich 10y ago
  That's true enough. The key point, though, is that the cold would have come at a typical rate. Typical being extremely slow, by human standards. We would have had many generations to prepare for it. There is growing agreement that what we are facing is going to happen very quickly, even by human standards.
  - kaybe 10y ago
    There is research that hints that a very quick onset might be possible. It's even be suggested that it can happen in months. [1] (I tried to find the corresponding paper but could only dig up a conference talk abstract.) The studies I found all used lake sediments in Irish lakes, so it's somewhat local and not conclusive yet imho. Still, it seems to be a surprisingly fast change in the data. (I was surprised; I didn't know.) Do you have a source for your point? It looks like a more extensive literature review is needed to answer this question since the answer is not on the surface. Or my google-fu is just weak today. On the other hand I also found research stating that the next glacial period might be a few 10,000 years off, so there's that. [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344-800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344-800-mini-ice...
    - Diederich 10y ago
      I over-stated it. Like you, I've run into a couple of mentions over the past half year, but I don't have them handy.
supernintendo 10y ago
The political and corporate establishments don't give a fuck about us or climate change. We need to stop looking to these selfish demagogues within the Republican and Democratic parties as if they have anything in common with us. These people and their families will be safe and sound even if the planet and environment goes completely to shit. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them would wipe out the majority of life on Earth if their political donors pushed for it. Be the change you want to see in the world. If you're worried about climate change and you're not vegan, you need to realize you're contributing to one of the largest causes of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. Consider adopting pets or children instead of breeding them into this world. If you're an activist, fight for local political change to bring sound environmental policy to your community and work to expand to surrounding regions. If you're an engineer or scientist, don't forget that you have the key to making this world a better place (and no global warming denier can take that from you). Finally, I believe Tesla sets a good precedent for manifesting these sorts of ambitious ideas within a system of free market capitalism. You say we are so fucked, but I'm not so quick to agree. I'm not going to say I'm a total optimist, but I think the potential exists, within our lifetime, for weird and exciting technologies that could allow us to solve these problems in ways we could have never imagined. As long as CERN doesn't destroy all life as we know it, I think we're good.
teslaberry 10y ago
right, so next week you will be talking about how the world is overcrowded and now you are saying japan is fucked because it doesn't have enough people. dogmatic orthodoxy of apocalyptic ecotastrophism is an pseudo-intellectual psycho-emotional epidemic.

superswordfish 10y ago

It seems like we're discovering a bunch of technologies that involve removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere now (and even using it as a resource). That isn't the only problem gas, but I'm optimistic that we will solve the "greenhouse effect" problem through this sort of climate engineering before the real disaster of rising sea levels gets too far. In a century people will probably be freaked out by a host of issues we've barely even thought of today (things like the Kessler syndrome that are not so top-of-the-mind).

vkou 10y ago
The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. Either way, it would be far cheaper to switch our energy production to renewables, then to geo-engineer on a planet scale. We aren't doing that in any meaningful way. Instead we pat ourselves on the back for reducing US coal energy generation to 37%. Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas...
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Never mind that this entire reduction comes from burning natural gas... It's still a huge improvement, cutting CO2 output by half and eliminating other byproducts.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Except that overall CO2 output has been steady since 2008. Yes, there has been GDP growth since then, which is great... But the atmosphere doesn't care about GDP. What it needs are reductions.
    - sliverstorm 10y ago
      Keeping CO2 output steady instead of rising with ever-growing population size & energy appetite is, I think, an important first victory. The work is by no means done, but Rome wasn't built in a day.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. Homes aren't the only thing destroyed by rising sealevels. Arable land that is under saltwater is a lot less arable.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Most arable land isn't coastal though - and most coastlines are urban. If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. As another poster mentioned, the land doesn't have to be underwater to become unusable, but rising sea levels have a limited reach.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Most arable land isn't coastal though A very large share of arable land is at a low elevation above sea level along waterways; land distance from the coast doesn't control the effect of sea-level rise. > If you flood, say, all of China's, America's, and Europe's coastlines, nobody will have to go hungry. Well, except that its impossible geographically to do that without also flooding inland arable areas. Flooding America's coastline also means flooding (among other prime agricultural areas) much of California's Central Valley.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  > The real disaster isn't rising sealevels (except in Bangladesh). Homes can be rebuilt. Its just a question of money. The real disaster is agricultural collapse in the tropics and subtropics. A good chunk of arable land and aquifers will be affected by rising sea levels as well. Really, our only hope is somehow all that land that is too cold to farm now...becomes more practical to farm. :/
  - dharma1 10y ago
    James Lovelock, the inventor of Electron Capture Detector, which he used to discover CFC's, and the person behind the Gaia theory, predicts that only Canada, Northern Europe and Siberia will be habitable in the later part of this century. www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/james-lovelock-the-prophet-20071101
    - fweespeech 10y ago
      Yes but its more than just habitability. Soil condition/quality as well as availability of water, etc. is important for farming.
      - dharma1 10y ago
        Very true - there will be a limit to what size of a population can be sustained by farming within those northern areas. Whatever that number is, it's probably not 9 billion people

mc32 10y ago

I agree climate change has to be taken seriously and we need to study ways to mitigate the effects of our GHG output. No doubt. On the Japan question. No, I think and hope they continue to be uniquely stubborn. Why? Because we are all going to be there (we would have been there if we'd be as strict as Latin American countries are about their own immigration). Japan can lead the way for us and for others on how to deal with this issue (population decline). Japan is in fact dealing with their issue head on by not importing workers. By not importing workers they are not defraying the issue. They are doing the opposite of dealing with consequences later.

hx87 10y ago
Besides, population decline could very well be a large part of the answer to the problem of automation and labor redundancy. Who cares if you have less workers if you /need/ less workers?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Besides, population decline could very well be a large part of the answer to the problem of automation and labor redundancy. Who cares if you have less workers if you /need/ less workers? Its only a short-term answer (sure, natural population contraction and population aging means your workforce to total supported population ratio is shrinking, which can delay the need to address the retooling society to deal with lower labor-hours:population requirements, but it only delays the need, and eventually creates other problems.)
intopieces 10y ago
In what way is importing workers "defraying the issue"? Also, why would the population of the US decline? White people aren't having babies like they used to, but other groups don't show the same trend. It's the reason why the US is on track to become a majority-minority country long before the original estimated 2050. California's already there. People are still clamorimg to get into the US, and fighting tooth and nail to stay here. You are the first person I've read that considers not importing workers a solution, rather than a symptom of cultural insularity that threatens to bring down their economy through the burden of an aging population.

hedgew 10y ago

Increased immigration from poor countries to rich countries will increase consumption and pollution. Third world aid has a similar problem. The more wealthy people become, the more they eat meat and pollute. Cases like Sweden where more than 90% of third world immigrants stay unemployed are likely the worst of all.

immist 10y ago
>Cases like Sweden where more than 90% of third world immigrants stay unemployed Do you have a source to back this claim?
- 91bananas 10y ago
  Out of genuine curiosity, what if s/he doesn't?
- hedgew 10y ago
  The real numbers are probably somewhat worse. There's a Swedish government report that has the best numbers, but I couldn't find it within a reasonable time. Swedish employment rates for natives and first-world immigrants are good, though. After one year, more than 99% are unemployed http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/162-000-kom-till-sverige-500-fick-jobb http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/162-000-kom-till-sverige-5... More than half of the unemployed in Sweden are immigrants http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nu-ar-fler-an-halften-av-de-arbetslosa-utrikes-fodda http://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/nu-ar-fler-an-halften-av-d...

antisthenes 10y ago

I usually find your sentiment to be buried somewhere deeper on most HN threads that touch on these issues. I'm honestly baffled at the endless optimism and belief of others in our ability to innovate and disrupt out of this crisis, whether it be technological advances or some market solution. Some people even go so far as to suggest that we'll be moving beyond this planet in the next 100 years and all resource problems will be solved. It's hard to reply to them without sounding snarky, but I can't help but wonder in what circumstances those people were raised with that line of thinking. They just sound completely ignorant of both history and basic physics when they make those statements.

kaybe 10y ago

Here is one little positive thought: At least there won't be an ice age, which, according to the timeline, should happen soonish (on geological timescales). An ice age would be very problematic too, and we've averted that easily.

Diederich 10y ago
That's true enough. The key point, though, is that the cold would have come at a typical rate. Typical being extremely slow, by human standards. We would have had many generations to prepare for it. There is growing agreement that what we are facing is going to happen very quickly, even by human standards.
- kaybe 10y ago
  There is research that hints that a very quick onset might be possible. It's even be suggested that it can happen in months. [1] (I tried to find the corresponding paper but could only dig up a conference talk abstract.) The studies I found all used lake sediments in Irish lakes, so it's somewhat local and not conclusive yet imho. Still, it seems to be a surprisingly fast change in the data. (I was surprised; I didn't know.) Do you have a source for your point? It looks like a more extensive literature review is needed to answer this question since the answer is not on the surface. Or my google-fu is just weak today. On the other hand I also found research stating that the next glacial period might be a few 10,000 years off, so there's that. [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344-800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344-800-mini-ice...
  - Diederich 10y ago
    I over-stated it. Like you, I've run into a couple of mentions over the past half year, but I don't have them handy.

supernintendo 10y ago

The political and corporate establishments don't give a fuck about us or climate change. We need to stop looking to these selfish demagogues within the Republican and Democratic parties as if they have anything in common with us. These people and their families will be safe and sound even if the planet and environment goes completely to shit. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many of them would wipe out the majority of life on Earth if their political donors pushed for it. Be the change you want to see in the world. If you're worried about climate change and you're not vegan, you need to realize you're contributing to one of the largest causes of biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions on the planet. Consider adopting pets or children instead of breeding them into this world. If you're an activist, fight for local political change to bring sound environmental policy to your community and work to expand to surrounding regions. If you're an engineer or scientist, don't forget that you have the key to making this world a better place (and no global warming denier can take that from you). Finally, I believe Tesla sets a good precedent for manifesting these sorts of ambitious ideas within a system of free market capitalism. You say we are so fucked, but I'm not so quick to agree. I'm not going to say I'm a total optimist, but I think the potential exists, within our lifetime, for weird and exciting technologies that could allow us to solve these problems in ways we could have never imagined. As long as CERN doesn't destroy all life as we know it, I think we're good.

teslaberry 10y ago

right, so next week you will be talking about how the world is overcrowded and now you are saying japan is fucked because it doesn't have enough people. dogmatic orthodoxy of apocalyptic ecotastrophism is an pseudo-intellectual psycho-emotional epidemic.