5 ms·

I will upvote any HN article about climate change! I really want the tech community to start seriously panicking about this stuff. They after all have the skill

by adwhit 10y ago

I will upvote any HN article about climate change! I really want the tech community to start seriously panicking about this stuff. They after all have the skills and the influence to do something about it.

Namrog84 10y ago
1. Do you think that the efforts should be to reverse it. How much of this is tech vs political? 2. How to handle it when it arrives? 3. how to survive the after effects of an apocalyptic scenario?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Do you think that the efforts should be to reverse it. Yes, that's our only realistic chance to restore a remotely healthy and diverse ecosystem on this planet.
madaxe_again 10y ago
Likewise, but doing anything about it requires regulation and governmental intervention, which is something the tech community are generally dead against - there's a big intersection between technocratic thinking and libertarian/minimal government thinking. Most argue that "the market" will solve this. I'd argue that it got us here, as we continue to treat the habitability of earth as an externality, with no economic cost.
- tpeo 10y ago
  I find it hard do believe that most would argue that the market will solve this issue, unless they're deeply ignorant of mainstream economics. Pollution is a classic example of a negative economic externality [0], and markets generally don't "fix" externalities unless: - merger costs are low enough that the people afflicted can buy out the polluter; - transaction costs are low enough that they can reach a mutual beneficial bargain (as per Coase)[1]; Both of which are impracticable. I won't even talk about the first solution. As for the second one, Global warming affects everyone across legal boundaries, so bargains are off the table. But I don't think the third solution is currently applicable either, which is the government stepping in. Who would step in? There isn't a world government yet, and the interests of national governments are much more likely to align with the polluters located in their territory than with with an Indian peasant whose crops just died because of the heat. Even if several governments committed to an agreement, it could be profitable to deviate from the agreement by enforcing and requiring lower environmental protection standards in order to attract investments from polluting industries. It's kind of a hard problem. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
  - Sideloader 10y ago
    You may find it hard to believe but the market "taking care of itself" is at the core of the neo-liberal ideology peddled by the powers that be from Obama, the Clintons, the EU, IMF, World Bank, ECB etc. They don't care if it destroys the planet or drives people into poverty. As long as it works for them, it's all good. Technology will fix it so no need to worry.
- Sideloader 10y ago
  Well said. Letting corporations and financial institutions regulate themselves has been disastrous on so many levels. But so long as they are protected from the effects of climate change the SV libertarian "tech delusionists" will keep their heads buried firmly in the sand.

by adwhit 10y ago

Namrog84 10y ago

1. Do you think that the efforts should be to reverse it. How much of this is tech vs political? 2. How to handle it when it arrives? 3. how to survive the after effects of an apocalyptic scenario?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Do you think that the efforts should be to reverse it. Yes, that's our only realistic chance to restore a remotely healthy and diverse ecosystem on this planet.

madaxe_again 10y ago

Likewise, but doing anything about it requires regulation and governmental intervention, which is something the tech community are generally dead against - there's a big intersection between technocratic thinking and libertarian/minimal government thinking. Most argue that "the market" will solve this. I'd argue that it got us here, as we continue to treat the habitability of earth as an externality, with no economic cost.

tpeo 10y ago
I find it hard do believe that most would argue that the market will solve this issue, unless they're deeply ignorant of mainstream economics. Pollution is a classic example of a negative economic externality [0], and markets generally don't "fix" externalities unless: - merger costs are low enough that the people afflicted can buy out the polluter; - transaction costs are low enough that they can reach a mutual beneficial bargain (as per Coase)[1]; Both of which are impracticable. I won't even talk about the first solution. As for the second one, Global warming affects everyone across legal boundaries, so bargains are off the table. But I don't think the third solution is currently applicable either, which is the government stepping in. Who would step in? There isn't a world government yet, and the interests of national governments are much more likely to align with the polluters located in their territory than with with an Indian peasant whose crops just died because of the heat. Even if several governments committed to an agreement, it could be profitable to deviate from the agreement by enforcing and requiring lower environmental protection standards in order to attract investments from polluting industries. It's kind of a hard problem. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem
- Sideloader 10y ago
  You may find it hard to believe but the market "taking care of itself" is at the core of the neo-liberal ideology peddled by the powers that be from Obama, the Clintons, the EU, IMF, World Bank, ECB etc. They don't care if it destroys the planet or drives people into poverty. As long as it works for them, it's all good. Technology will fix it so no need to worry.
Sideloader 10y ago
Well said. Letting corporations and financial institutions regulate themselves has been disastrous on so many levels. But so long as they are protected from the effects of climate change the SV libertarian "tech delusionists" will keep their heads buried firmly in the sand.