4 ms·

Don't worry, look at the bright side. E.g. I heard the US economy enjoys a 4% growth rate and that can only be a good thing! Right?

by dao- 8y ago

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
HN doesn't really do sarcasm. There is an interesting point here though, we will never get a grip on this problem whilst the primary focus of politicians is growth. The idea that you can fix this without some lifestyle sacrifice is probably false. If we want a sustainable future it won't include foreign holidays, personal cars, juicy steaks and shiny toys.
- trentnix 8y ago
  And by what conditions would the problem be judged as fixed? I’ll believe it’s a real crisis when the people insisting it is actually live like it is. But while they get their Starbucks and fly on their planes and watch their Netflix and shop their Whole Foods and stack their Amazon boxes all while claiming we need to collectively engage in some sort of “lifestyle sacrifice”, I remain skeptical. If such a sacrifice is indeed necessary, you should get started immediately and not wait for the government to force that sacrifice on you.
  - dao- 8y ago
    I stopped eating meat five years ago and made the decision not to get a car. It's a start but it's not enough. I'd welcome the government forcing more change on me, but more importantly I want the government to encourage if not enforce change on a larger scale (like the EU banning old-school light bulbs some years ago), because that's what governments are there for. I can't do that on my own and the looming ecological disaster is too severe to sit back and hope that enough people will wake up before it's too late.
    - trentnix 8y ago
      Centuries of fear-mongering by those warning of ecological disaster and yet we've experienced no global ecological disasters. But you want government forcing change despite many, many examples (within a century!) of that resulting in political, and subsequently human, catastrophe. You might want to think this through...
      - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
        "Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970" isn't an ecological disaster?
        trentnix 8y ago
        It simply isn’t true. That would have catastrophic effects on food supply and observed wildlife, and that hasn’t been the case at all. You’d see a drastic reduction in the population of game such as deer and bear and sport fish, but those populations thrive. I should see fewer snakes and birds and rabbits in my yard yet that hasn’t happened. So that tells me it’s nonsense.
        tonyedgecombe 8y ago
        So your anecdote trumps is better than some actual data?
        dao- 8y ago
        As the article says, different species are affected differently. It's really not that hard to understand that you observing snakes and birds and rabbits in your yard doesn't disprove an extensive scientific study covering all kinds of natural habitats.
        knight-of-lambd 8y ago
        I would expect such a strong assertion to come with well laid out and persuasive reasoning. Maybe spoil me with relevant data (even second hand). Instead, you reject both premise and conclusion by some extremely weak heuristic, that has trouble even approximating reality in the first order.
  - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
    >If such a sacrifice is indeed necessary, you should get started immediately and not wait for the government to force that sacrifice on you. I started a long time ago, haven't been on a plane for 18 years, don't own a car, barely eat any meat. I'm just waiting for you now.
  - rb808 8y ago
    > But while they get their Starbucks and fly on their planes and watch their Netflix and shop their Whole Foods and stack their Amazon boxes all while claiming we need to collectively engage in some sort of “lifestyle sacrifice”, I remain skeptical. Yeah but they recycle.

Don't worry, look at the bright side. E.g. I heard the US economy enjoys a 4% growth rate and that can only be a good thing! Right?

by dao- 8y ago

Don't worry, look at the bright side. E.g. I heard the US economy enjoys a 4% growth rate and that can only be a good thing! Right?

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

HN doesn't really do sarcasm. There is an interesting point here though, we will never get a grip on this problem whilst the primary focus of politicians is growth. The idea that you can fix this without some lifestyle sacrifice is probably false. If we want a sustainable future it won't include foreign holidays, personal cars, juicy steaks and shiny toys.

trentnix 8y ago
And by what conditions would the problem be judged as fixed? I’ll believe it’s a real crisis when the people insisting it is actually live like it is. But while they get their Starbucks and fly on their planes and watch their Netflix and shop their Whole Foods and stack their Amazon boxes all while claiming we need to collectively engage in some sort of “lifestyle sacrifice”, I remain skeptical. If such a sacrifice is indeed necessary, you should get started immediately and not wait for the government to force that sacrifice on you.
- dao- 8y ago
  I stopped eating meat five years ago and made the decision not to get a car. It's a start but it's not enough. I'd welcome the government forcing more change on me, but more importantly I want the government to encourage if not enforce change on a larger scale (like the EU banning old-school light bulbs some years ago), because that's what governments are there for. I can't do that on my own and the looming ecological disaster is too severe to sit back and hope that enough people will wake up before it's too late.
  - trentnix 8y ago
    Centuries of fear-mongering by those warning of ecological disaster and yet we've experienced no global ecological disasters. But you want government forcing change despite many, many examples (within a century!) of that resulting in political, and subsequently human, catastrophe. You might want to think this through...
    - tonyedgecombe 8y ago
      "Humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970" isn't an ecological disaster?
      - trentnix 8y ago
        It simply isn’t true. That would have catastrophic effects on food supply and observed wildlife, and that hasn’t been the case at all. You’d see a drastic reduction in the population of game such as deer and bear and sport fish, but those populations thrive. I should see fewer snakes and birds and rabbits in my yard yet that hasn’t happened. So that tells me it’s nonsense.
        tonyedgecombe 8y ago
        So your anecdote trumps is better than some actual data?
        dao- 8y ago
        As the article says, different species are affected differently. It's really not that hard to understand that you observing snakes and birds and rabbits in your yard doesn't disprove an extensive scientific study covering all kinds of natural habitats.
        knight-of-lambd 8y ago
        I would expect such a strong assertion to come with well laid out and persuasive reasoning. Maybe spoil me with relevant data (even second hand). Instead, you reject both premise and conclusion by some extremely weak heuristic, that has trouble even approximating reality in the first order.
- tonyedgecombe 8y ago
  >If such a sacrifice is indeed necessary, you should get started immediately and not wait for the government to force that sacrifice on you. I started a long time ago, haven't been on a plane for 18 years, don't own a car, barely eat any meat. I'm just waiting for you now.
- rb808 8y ago
  > But while they get their Starbucks and fly on their planes and watch their Netflix and shop their Whole Foods and stack their Amazon boxes all while claiming we need to collectively engage in some sort of “lifestyle sacrifice”, I remain skeptical. Yeah but they recycle.