5 ms·

> Meat at twice the price would probably solve the problem. While true, it basically sends the message of "If you have enough money you are free to do what you

> Meat at twice the price would probably solve the problem. While true, it basically sends the message of "If you have enough money you are free to do what you please to the detriment of the planet."

abraae 9y ago
Although it sounds outrageous when you say it like that, its pragmatic, and fits us as a species. I'd like petrol to be 3 or 4 times the cost it is now. That would greatly reduce emissions, but fossil fuels could still be used in situations where there was no alternative (long distance flight, huge earthmoving machines?). Inevitably, rich jerks would continue to ride their jetskis. So what? You can't legislate people to have the right attitude. But taxing things does drive bulk behaviour.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Some of those giant earth-movers, like the tracked mining equipment that fills a giant mining-sized dump truck, are already powered by electricity that is generated on-site. They have big giant cables that trail behind them. I mention this just to share that there is some chance of this improving, even in areas we might not think likely. If it is a long-term mining operation (short-term someday, perhaps) then I can't think of a technical reason that prevents wind and solar being used to generate the on-site electricity. A recent HN article was about one of the mining dump trucks being powered by battery and using regenerative braking to mean it was able to charge itself. Those giant diggers are already using braking in their cables that power their shovels. Maybe there is something to capture there, as well. In my work, I had the chance to deal with some riggers and some crane operators (smaller stuff) by just exposure while collecting data. During that exposure, I learned something new. Lifting the stuff up is actually pretty easy. It is putting it down that is difficult. Maybe there is some energy to capture in that process?
  - abraae 9y ago
    That sounds pretty cool. I guess there will be a lot of mining for lithium in the future.
samstave 9y ago
Uh, that's the exact business model of Whole Foods, now amazon. Basically "only the rich shall eat healthy" And to be totally honest, I want to tackle this issue through a startup called "standard pantry" which is the idea that one should have access to a standard pantry of goods and recipes (in place of a standard min income) and they should be able to sustain only and healthily feed themselves.
- tertius 9y ago
  Replace > only the rich shall eat healthy With > only the rich shall eat fancy It's easy to eat healthy if you're not rich. Buy non-processed ingredients and cook them yourself.
  - samstave 9y ago
    "Easy" means that you have been educated to a state that makes you aware of such... That's the problem. We need to educate on a basic standard pantry that allows healthy to be so easy that it doesn't even cross our minds.
    - tertius 9y ago
      Educate? The only thing between me and a home cooked meal is fast food. Cooking is not inaccessible. If the only problem is nutrition education then that is not a rich person privilege. A large majority of the public cannot afford Whole foods but are educated enough to understand that home cooked meals from non-processed ingredients are healthier than their counterparts. If education is all it took we'd all be rich with six pack abs. (Derek Sivers.) Habit rules all. Make unhealthy food illegal? Make marketing unhealthy food illegal? Hmm...
      - samstave 9y ago
        See, your logic is sound, and the math isn't working out recently though. I learned to cook from my depression era grandmother. Home cooking is healthy, but not always cheap. My grandmother used to tell me "this meal is $1.37 per serving" As we made things, I learned to cook in le curset pots from a woman who used to travel the world with Martin yan and Julia child... (we were state department family and had a lot of opportunity) But my main point remains: the "educate" is pArt-and-parcel to the whole greater idea of a home cooked meal: "family time" "Fast food is the bane of existence as we have basically brought generations to not value what home cooking means... then we exploit them in the cheap labor force and perpetuate the idea that having a "home cooked meal" means that "the way mom used to cook it" is an actual phrase and it means the disruption of the basis of modern society, the family... This issue can spiral and spiral, but my point is that rather than basic income, we need basic pantry - the basis of understanding, having access to, and the knowledge to cook a good meal without breaking the home (due to how hard people need to work at jobs for their ability to provide food on the table)
gdfhhgddhjj 9y ago
Well, this is true today at least. What are you surprised at?
- sosborn 9y ago
  What makes you think I am suprised?
thinkloop 9y ago
> If you have enough money you are free to do what you please to the detriment of the planet. But it wouldn't be a detriment, the extra cost would be derived from the expenses associated with offsetting the negative externalities (by cleaning pollution, planting trees, recycling, water purification, whatever).

> Meat at twice the price would probably solve the problem. While true, it basically sends the message of "If you have enough money you are free to do what you please to the detriment of the planet."

abraae 9y ago

Although it sounds outrageous when you say it like that, its pragmatic, and fits us as a species. I'd like petrol to be 3 or 4 times the cost it is now. That would greatly reduce emissions, but fossil fuels could still be used in situations where there was no alternative (long distance flight, huge earthmoving machines?). Inevitably, rich jerks would continue to ride their jetskis. So what? You can't legislate people to have the right attitude. But taxing things does drive bulk behaviour.

KGIII 9y ago
Some of those giant earth-movers, like the tracked mining equipment that fills a giant mining-sized dump truck, are already powered by electricity that is generated on-site. They have big giant cables that trail behind them. I mention this just to share that there is some chance of this improving, even in areas we might not think likely. If it is a long-term mining operation (short-term someday, perhaps) then I can't think of a technical reason that prevents wind and solar being used to generate the on-site electricity. A recent HN article was about one of the mining dump trucks being powered by battery and using regenerative braking to mean it was able to charge itself. Those giant diggers are already using braking in their cables that power their shovels. Maybe there is something to capture there, as well. In my work, I had the chance to deal with some riggers and some crane operators (smaller stuff) by just exposure while collecting data. During that exposure, I learned something new. Lifting the stuff up is actually pretty easy. It is putting it down that is difficult. Maybe there is some energy to capture in that process?
- abraae 9y ago
  That sounds pretty cool. I guess there will be a lot of mining for lithium in the future.

samstave 9y ago

Uh, that's the exact business model of Whole Foods, now amazon. Basically "only the rich shall eat healthy" And to be totally honest, I want to tackle this issue through a startup called "standard pantry" which is the idea that one should have access to a standard pantry of goods and recipes (in place of a standard min income) and they should be able to sustain only and healthily feed themselves.

tertius 9y ago
Replace > only the rich shall eat healthy With > only the rich shall eat fancy It's easy to eat healthy if you're not rich. Buy non-processed ingredients and cook them yourself.
- samstave 9y ago
  "Easy" means that you have been educated to a state that makes you aware of such... That's the problem. We need to educate on a basic standard pantry that allows healthy to be so easy that it doesn't even cross our minds.
  - tertius 9y ago
    Educate? The only thing between me and a home cooked meal is fast food. Cooking is not inaccessible. If the only problem is nutrition education then that is not a rich person privilege. A large majority of the public cannot afford Whole foods but are educated enough to understand that home cooked meals from non-processed ingredients are healthier than their counterparts. If education is all it took we'd all be rich with six pack abs. (Derek Sivers.) Habit rules all. Make unhealthy food illegal? Make marketing unhealthy food illegal? Hmm...
    - samstave 9y ago
      See, your logic is sound, and the math isn't working out recently though. I learned to cook from my depression era grandmother. Home cooking is healthy, but not always cheap. My grandmother used to tell me "this meal is $1.37 per serving" As we made things, I learned to cook in le curset pots from a woman who used to travel the world with Martin yan and Julia child... (we were state department family and had a lot of opportunity) But my main point remains: the "educate" is pArt-and-parcel to the whole greater idea of a home cooked meal: "family time" "Fast food is the bane of existence as we have basically brought generations to not value what home cooking means... then we exploit them in the cheap labor force and perpetuate the idea that having a "home cooked meal" means that "the way mom used to cook it" is an actual phrase and it means the disruption of the basis of modern society, the family... This issue can spiral and spiral, but my point is that rather than basic income, we need basic pantry - the basis of understanding, having access to, and the knowledge to cook a good meal without breaking the home (due to how hard people need to work at jobs for their ability to provide food on the table)

gdfhhgddhjj 9y ago

Well, this is true today at least. What are you surprised at?

sosborn 9y ago
What makes you think I am suprised?

thinkloop 9y ago

> If you have enough money you are free to do what you please to the detriment of the planet. But it wouldn't be a detriment, the extra cost would be derived from the expenses associated with offsetting the negative externalities (by cleaning pollution, planting trees, recycling, water purification, whatever).