7 ms·

People are thinking way too much about how much this saves them at a personal level. I think people should instead be thinking about how we can save the existe

People are thinking way too much about how much this saves them at a personal level. I think people should instead be thinking about how we can save the existence of the entire species, and all other higher order forms of life on earth, rather than focusing on their individual tax breaks, savings, or other trivial concerns. Yes, your cash flow is rendered quite trivial if life on Earth ends. Invest in the Life Economy, and turn your back on the Death Economy. The value here is in the benefit to life, concern over state monopolized currencies clearly facilitates an economy of death.

RodericDay 9y ago
People serious about saving the planet aren't putting solar shingles on their mansions. They're downsizing.
- devrandomguy 9y ago
  In a community of entrepreneurs and developers of all stripes, scaling down is an unpopular solution. But, it is the only one that I have been able to follow through on, myself. I have actually come to enjoy the newfound simplicity in my life.
- steego 9y ago
  I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'll throw out this perspective: If you want to invent tomorrow's computer today, you can do it by spending a lot of money per unit. That was thinking at Xerox Parc and at SRI before it. Tying it together, often the only people who can afford and bootstrap early prototypes are wealthy people. Elon has tapped into this strategy by making the early prototypes of his cars and shingles sexy so wealthy people can signal to other wealthy people that they are high-minded and forward thinking people. Good. If we can use that to bootstrap the production of cheaper shingle/panels for billions of people in the long run, we're better off in the long run. Nevertheless, I agree with your fundamental premise that downsizing, possession sharing and clever recycling is the best solution for most people. Personally speaking, I'd much rather live a life where I share my personal possessions and consume as little as possible. Call me a hippy, but I could care less for owning most shit. It doesn't make me happy for the most part. I'd also love to see us get away from heating/cooling buildings and research heating/cooling bodies with interesting clothing. Again, I think targeting high-minded/forward-thinking wealthy people is a good strategy for cultivating an important industries and products like this.
- embro 9y ago
  If you are really serious, your goal should be to be net positive, downgrading won't get you there, never.
waynecochran 9y ago
If the economics don't work, then you can wish you are saving the planet all you want, but it ain't gonna happen. Elon Musk understands this very well -- he always points out that solving the global warming problem will only work if the solution is economical.
- obstinate 9y ago
  Also, this is far from the optimal thing to do with the money, even if you want to spend it on saving the planet. High quality RECs or carbon offsets would be far more efficient ways to spend it.
martalist 9y ago
While noble, it seems the opposite is true. I think most people don't care about future problems, let alone other life forms. Musk has done so well precisely because he's marketed his products in a way that they appeal to people on a personal level. I mean, he could have started with a low performance, average-looking, electric, family sedan. Instead he sold something much more emotive/egotistical, with huge success. If you want to do the right thing long term, provide products that do the right thing and market them on a personal level.
- ShannonAlther 9y ago
  > I mean, he could have started with a low performance, average-looking, electric, family sedan. There are other reasons Tesla started with a high-end model. Because building the cars was going to take a lot of R&D, Tesla supported the cost by starting with fancy sports cars, which have a better ROI, and then used the technology to manufacture less pricey cars later on. Source (ctrl + f "the business plan"): http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html#part3 http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-lif...
  - martalist 9y ago
    > There are other reasons Tesla started with a high-end model. True, I didn't mean to imply it was the only reason - more that it's good example of appealing to human self-interest to fix a larger problem.
    - thewhitetulip 9y ago
      It is called selling! Nobody would have bothered to buy a electric car if it was launched as "family mass produced car", the reason why people are are raving about Tesla is because their cars are now a status symbol or a lifestyle symbol, just like the iPhone, Musk did his selling well. When you are building a company, being able to sell a product is more important than just building a world class product.
- crush-n-spread 9y ago
dbg31415 9y ago
"In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes You aren't wrong, but solutions have to be economically viable in the present. There's some threshold people can pay to improve their lives (and potentially all lives) in the future -- but the difference between a standard roof and Tesla roof and battery is like 70k for me. I just redid my roof last year, cost me $14k -- and it's a very nice roof. Spending $85k on a roof... that's about a quarter the price of my house. When it's a 2x price difference, I'd consider it. Realistically, even factoring in the cost of the electricity it will offset, it has to be similar in cost to a conventional roof for most people to invest. I think about one hail storm wiping out an $85k investment... and what insurance rates go up to in order to support this roof... and I just cringe. Also keep in mind... supply and demand. As more people use solar... the price for electricity -- all electricity -- will go down. Since my electric bill from the power company is likely to drop (in the relative short-term), that lowers my incentive to pay a premium. We're likely to see a spike in oil and gas as prices for those plummet too... We'll need government to artificially inflate the cost of these to remind people about the environmental damage, or we'll do a lot of damage if the switch to solar happens too quickly. Anyway... it's cool, just way out of my price point... and I feel like I make a fairly good living and tend to be a bit leftist on environmental issues... for your average Red-Stater, no way they're going to even consider paying a price like this. Looking forward to the "3" version of this in a decade or so, when the price drops to about 1/3 of what it is now, I'm sold!
wyager 9y ago
This is naïve, useless advice. First off, we are not at existential risk from climate change. Most reasonable estimates suggest on the order of single-digit percent productivity losses for society over the next several decades. Substantial and unfortunate, but not existence-threatening, and in fact not even enough to outweigh reasonably expectable productivity gains from technological development. There are much more serious existential risks to humanity than climate change. Second off, no one has enough information about the global state of the world that "just think about the big picture" is actually good, actionable advice. People only have enough information and processing power to do local maximization, and this actually works exceptionally well. If you want whatever arbitrary "big picture" stuff you're into to factor into people's decision-making process, the best way to do that is things like tax incentives. How well this works is up for debate, but it's certainly better than vague appeals to "save the environment". I'm not sure what you're calling the "death economy". Could you explain that further?
- hyperbovine 9y ago
  > Most reasonable estimates suggest What is the variance of those estimators?
- Gatsky 9y ago
  > First off, we are not at existential risk from climate change. A bold claim indeed.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    Not really. Even RCP8.0 wouldn't lead to extinction of the human race.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Does that include the increased risks of nuclear war, new disease vectors etc? Because, while the probable outcome is relatively little impact the butterfly effect means you can get some less predictable results indirectly. Aka migration causes war X which due to _ spiraled into WWIII. Granted the world without global warming could alos end randomly as well so you can just say unknown unknowns are always a risk even if it does mean a slightly less stable geopolitical environment that does not nessisarily mean anything terrible happens.
robbrown451 9y ago
Yeah good luck with that plan. ("Honey, if we get a solar roof it will help the planet, but we'll have to put junior in the cheaper preschool to pay for it. Whatya think?")
- brandon272 9y ago
  It's unfortunate that people can't see that junior dealing with the effects of climate change in 30, 40, 50 years could be a lot more devastating to his life than the prestige level of his preschool.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    could be. the impact of going into a bad school has almost immediate effects. Do you think people dont think at all when they make decisions?
  - hkmurakami 9y ago
    We seem to care about relative outcomes vs peers more than absolute offset shifts for the larger group.
  - obastani 9y ago
    It's a classic case of prisoners' dilemma. Taking your kid out of daycare isn't going to help the planet very much, but could hurt your kid a lot.
    - omegaworks 9y ago
      Why does there need to be "the best" preschool. Can't we have a society with standards? A society that gives a damn about iniquity?
      - gremlinsinc 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
awkwardtortoise 9y ago
Tesla roof isn't going to save the species and life isn't going to end. I expect this type of comment on reddit, not on hacker news. > Invest in the Life Economy, and turn your back on the Death Economy. Are you serious? This doesn't pass the smell test. This sounds like something from a PR firm hired by Tesla to "evangelize" on social media.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Why are you trying to get in the way of the Life Economy? You need some Dayman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4DNXBkfksI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4DNXBkfksI
- haburka 9y ago
  There's a difference between Reddit and hackernews?
rhino369 9y ago
Even if you want to calculate this on ecological cost basis rather than economic, you could better spend that money to achieve a larger impact.
halcyondaze 9y ago
This is a case of should be this way, but never will be. People have and always will respond to personal incentives, which is why framing this way is doing well. If people are incentivized to get solar roofs for personal benefits and it happens to also help the "Life Economy," this is good. Especially because more people will get them when they're framed in terms of what an individual gains from installing it, not what Humanity gains.
geppeto 9y ago
Why are you still trying altruism? Aligning the economic incentives to promote an outcome is much more effective at getting that outcome WE ALREADY KNOW THIS
carleverett 9y ago
I agree with the sentiment, but I have to correct your idea that global warming is a species-ending problem. The worst-case scenario of global warming (which might be inevitable given the current CO2 levels) is a 216 foot rise in sea level [1]. This will cause mass migration and be extremely expensive and unpleasant for society as a whole, but poses little threat of ending humanity. NASA's JPL did a great lecture a few months ago talking about the current scientific consensus on the consequences of global warming - it's well worth the watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJYs8L84L4s&t=3714s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJYs8L84L4s&t=3714s [1] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-se...
- greedo 9y ago
  213 feet??
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Should I start buying 215 foot above sea level for future beachfront development?
  - asafira 9y ago
    Maybe if you want the place to be in 1 foot of water?
- Retra 9y ago
  Global warming is causing the destruction of whole ecosystems, any of which might lead to a chain-reaction that undoes biological infrastructure that entire species rely upon, including humans. Many species have already been ended, so I'm not sure why you believe it's not a species-ending problem. Mass migration also means the movement of predators into territories with unadapted prey, which can also result in extinction. (The Dodo went extinct due to habitat destruction and the introduction of predatory mammals, for example.) Almost every extinction in the history of Earth has been a result of global climate changes. I don't understand why you're being so myopic? The worst case isn't a few people having to buy new homes, it's mass extinction and war. Which may as well be total nuclear war, as far as you or I can predict.
canes123456 9y ago
What matters is it being a benefit on a personal level. There is a massive collective action problem. Even if I wanted to spend money on this, it wouldn't matter unless vast numbers of people also do it. There is no way that vast numbers of people are going to act against their self interest all at once.
averagewall 9y ago
Why does every climate change story have someone spreading the same false information? Climate change isn't a threat to the human race. Inventing extreme ideas entrenches opposition and gives them valid reasons to say "you're wrong and I won't do anything to help". If you really believe that, then it's an unconventional idea that deserves references.
- Shinkei 9y ago
  Read away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Observed_and_expected_effects_on_social_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Observed_and_ex...
  - averagewall 9y ago
    I don't see anything in there related to the extinction of humans. That's what the OP was concerned about.

RodericDay 9y ago

People serious about saving the planet aren't putting solar shingles on their mansions. They're downsizing.

devrandomguy 9y ago
In a community of entrepreneurs and developers of all stripes, scaling down is an unpopular solution. But, it is the only one that I have been able to follow through on, myself. I have actually come to enjoy the newfound simplicity in my life.
steego 9y ago
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'll throw out this perspective: If you want to invent tomorrow's computer today, you can do it by spending a lot of money per unit. That was thinking at Xerox Parc and at SRI before it. Tying it together, often the only people who can afford and bootstrap early prototypes are wealthy people. Elon has tapped into this strategy by making the early prototypes of his cars and shingles sexy so wealthy people can signal to other wealthy people that they are high-minded and forward thinking people. Good. If we can use that to bootstrap the production of cheaper shingle/panels for billions of people in the long run, we're better off in the long run. Nevertheless, I agree with your fundamental premise that downsizing, possession sharing and clever recycling is the best solution for most people. Personally speaking, I'd much rather live a life where I share my personal possessions and consume as little as possible. Call me a hippy, but I could care less for owning most shit. It doesn't make me happy for the most part. I'd also love to see us get away from heating/cooling buildings and research heating/cooling bodies with interesting clothing. Again, I think targeting high-minded/forward-thinking wealthy people is a good strategy for cultivating an important industries and products like this.
embro 9y ago
If you are really serious, your goal should be to be net positive, downgrading won't get you there, never.

waynecochran 9y ago

If the economics don't work, then you can wish you are saving the planet all you want, but it ain't gonna happen. Elon Musk understands this very well -- he always points out that solving the global warming problem will only work if the solution is economical.

obstinate 9y ago
Also, this is far from the optimal thing to do with the money, even if you want to spend it on saving the planet. High quality RECs or carbon offsets would be far more efficient ways to spend it.

martalist 9y ago

While noble, it seems the opposite is true. I think most people don't care about future problems, let alone other life forms. Musk has done so well precisely because he's marketed his products in a way that they appeal to people on a personal level. I mean, he could have started with a low performance, average-looking, electric, family sedan. Instead he sold something much more emotive/egotistical, with huge success. If you want to do the right thing long term, provide products that do the right thing and market them on a personal level.

ShannonAlther 9y ago
> I mean, he could have started with a low performance, average-looking, electric, family sedan. There are other reasons Tesla started with a high-end model. Because building the cars was going to take a lot of R&D, Tesla supported the cost by starting with fancy sports cars, which have a better ROI, and then used the technology to manufacture less pricey cars later on. Source (ctrl + f "the business plan"): http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html#part3 http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-lif...
- martalist 9y ago
  > There are other reasons Tesla started with a high-end model. True, I didn't mean to imply it was the only reason - more that it's good example of appealing to human self-interest to fix a larger problem.
  - thewhitetulip 9y ago
    It is called selling! Nobody would have bothered to buy a electric car if it was launched as "family mass produced car", the reason why people are are raving about Tesla is because their cars are now a status symbol or a lifestyle symbol, just like the iPhone, Musk did his selling well. When you are building a company, being able to sell a product is more important than just building a world class product.
crush-n-spread 9y ago

dbg31415 9y ago

"In the long run we are all dead." - John Maynard Keynes You aren't wrong, but solutions have to be economically viable in the present. There's some threshold people can pay to improve their lives (and potentially all lives) in the future -- but the difference between a standard roof and Tesla roof and battery is like 70k for me. I just redid my roof last year, cost me $14k -- and it's a very nice roof. Spending $85k on a roof... that's about a quarter the price of my house. When it's a 2x price difference, I'd consider it. Realistically, even factoring in the cost of the electricity it will offset, it has to be similar in cost to a conventional roof for most people to invest. I think about one hail storm wiping out an $85k investment... and what insurance rates go up to in order to support this roof... and I just cringe. Also keep in mind... supply and demand. As more people use solar... the price for electricity -- all electricity -- will go down. Since my electric bill from the power company is likely to drop (in the relative short-term), that lowers my incentive to pay a premium. We're likely to see a spike in oil and gas as prices for those plummet too... We'll need government to artificially inflate the cost of these to remind people about the environmental damage, or we'll do a lot of damage if the switch to solar happens too quickly. Anyway... it's cool, just way out of my price point... and I feel like I make a fairly good living and tend to be a bit leftist on environmental issues... for your average Red-Stater, no way they're going to even consider paying a price like this. Looking forward to the "3" version of this in a decade or so, when the price drops to about 1/3 of what it is now, I'm sold!

wyager 9y ago

This is naïve, useless advice. First off, we are not at existential risk from climate change. Most reasonable estimates suggest on the order of single-digit percent productivity losses for society over the next several decades. Substantial and unfortunate, but not existence-threatening, and in fact not even enough to outweigh reasonably expectable productivity gains from technological development. There are much more serious existential risks to humanity than climate change. Second off, no one has enough information about the global state of the world that "just think about the big picture" is actually good, actionable advice. People only have enough information and processing power to do local maximization, and this actually works exceptionally well. If you want whatever arbitrary "big picture" stuff you're into to factor into people's decision-making process, the best way to do that is things like tax incentives. How well this works is up for debate, but it's certainly better than vague appeals to "save the environment". I'm not sure what you're calling the "death economy". Could you explain that further?

hyperbovine 9y ago
> Most reasonable estimates suggest What is the variance of those estimators?
Gatsky 9y ago
> First off, we are not at existential risk from climate change. A bold claim indeed.
- rhino369 9y ago
  Not really. Even RCP8.0 wouldn't lead to extinction of the human race.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Does that include the increased risks of nuclear war, new disease vectors etc? Because, while the probable outcome is relatively little impact the butterfly effect means you can get some less predictable results indirectly. Aka migration causes war X which due to _ spiraled into WWIII. Granted the world without global warming could alos end randomly as well so you can just say unknown unknowns are always a risk even if it does mean a slightly less stable geopolitical environment that does not nessisarily mean anything terrible happens.

robbrown451 9y ago

Yeah good luck with that plan. ("Honey, if we get a solar roof it will help the planet, but we'll have to put junior in the cheaper preschool to pay for it. Whatya think?")

brandon272 9y ago
It's unfortunate that people can't see that junior dealing with the effects of climate change in 30, 40, 50 years could be a lot more devastating to his life than the prestige level of his preschool.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ekianjo 9y ago
  could be. the impact of going into a bad school has almost immediate effects. Do you think people dont think at all when they make decisions?
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  We seem to care about relative outcomes vs peers more than absolute offset shifts for the larger group.
- obastani 9y ago
  It's a classic case of prisoners' dilemma. Taking your kid out of daycare isn't going to help the planet very much, but could hurt your kid a lot.
  - omegaworks 9y ago
    Why does there need to be "the best" preschool. Can't we have a society with standards? A society that gives a damn about iniquity?
    - gremlinsinc 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

awkwardtortoise 9y ago

Tesla roof isn't going to save the species and life isn't going to end. I expect this type of comment on reddit, not on hacker news. > Invest in the Life Economy, and turn your back on the Death Economy. Are you serious? This doesn't pass the smell test. This sounds like something from a PR firm hired by Tesla to "evangelize" on social media.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Why are you trying to get in the way of the Life Economy? You need some Dayman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4DNXBkfksI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4DNXBkfksI
haburka 9y ago
There's a difference between Reddit and hackernews?

rhino369 9y ago

Even if you want to calculate this on ecological cost basis rather than economic, you could better spend that money to achieve a larger impact.

halcyondaze 9y ago

This is a case of should be this way, but never will be. People have and always will respond to personal incentives, which is why framing this way is doing well. If people are incentivized to get solar roofs for personal benefits and it happens to also help the "Life Economy," this is good. Especially because more people will get them when they're framed in terms of what an individual gains from installing it, not what Humanity gains.

geppeto 9y ago

Why are you still trying altruism? Aligning the economic incentives to promote an outcome is much more effective at getting that outcome WE ALREADY KNOW THIS

carleverett 9y ago

I agree with the sentiment, but I have to correct your idea that global warming is a species-ending problem. The worst-case scenario of global warming (which might be inevitable given the current CO2 levels) is a 216 foot rise in sea level [1]. This will cause mass migration and be extremely expensive and unpleasant for society as a whole, but poses little threat of ending humanity. NASA's JPL did a great lecture a few months ago talking about the current scientific consensus on the consequences of global warming - it's well worth the watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJYs8L84L4s&t=3714s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJYs8L84L4s&t=3714s [1] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-se...

greedo 9y ago
213 feet??
brianwawok 9y ago
Should I start buying 215 foot above sea level for future beachfront development?
- asafira 9y ago
  Maybe if you want the place to be in 1 foot of water?
Retra 9y ago
Global warming is causing the destruction of whole ecosystems, any of which might lead to a chain-reaction that undoes biological infrastructure that entire species rely upon, including humans. Many species have already been ended, so I'm not sure why you believe it's not a species-ending problem. Mass migration also means the movement of predators into territories with unadapted prey, which can also result in extinction. (The Dodo went extinct due to habitat destruction and the introduction of predatory mammals, for example.) Almost every extinction in the history of Earth has been a result of global climate changes. I don't understand why you're being so myopic? The worst case isn't a few people having to buy new homes, it's mass extinction and war. Which may as well be total nuclear war, as far as you or I can predict.

canes123456 9y ago

What matters is it being a benefit on a personal level. There is a massive collective action problem. Even if I wanted to spend money on this, it wouldn't matter unless vast numbers of people also do it. There is no way that vast numbers of people are going to act against their self interest all at once.

averagewall 9y ago

Why does every climate change story have someone spreading the same false information? Climate change isn't a threat to the human race. Inventing extreme ideas entrenches opposition and gives them valid reasons to say "you're wrong and I won't do anything to help". If you really believe that, then it's an unconventional idea that deserves references.

Shinkei 9y ago
Read away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Observed_and_expected_effects_on_social_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Observed_and_ex...
- averagewall 9y ago
  I don't see anything in there related to the extinction of humans. That's what the OP was concerned about.