3 ms·

"We" may not be waiting at all, the readers of HN and other tech-centric websites. Many people here may be improving their personal behaviors, but that is never

"We" may not be waiting at all, the readers of HN and other tech-centric websites. Many people here may be improving their personal behaviors, but that is never going to be enough. What WE need to do is VOTE, first off, and second, realize that politicians and corporate entities are those with the power to truly shift our behavior as an economy. Until politicians and corporations make huge moves, we'll be stuck waiting and making minor tweaks to our relatively inconsequential individual carbon footprints.

anigbrowl 7y ago
Automated market movements take place in milliseconds and those in developed countries mostly enjoy access to more or less instantaneous communication. The idea that the best response to political problems is to patiently vote every 2 years and expect that to have more of an impact that actions taken on shorter timescales is absurd. Voting is nice in theory but in practice is extremely amendable to corruption. 18th century technology isn't cutting it in the 21st century. In a rational world our legal code would be editable like Wikipedia built on top of blockchain. If you look at representative government as an information system it's screamingly obvious that it no longer functions properly and is ripe for abuse.
ComputerGuru 7y ago
That’s very high and noble but look at France and les Gilets jaunes. Even voting in people willing to bite the bullet and pull the trigger on much needed actions is not enough. And that’s a shame because the general consensus is that in terms of effectiveness (i.e. not accounting for economic fallout), simply directly taxing CO2 emissions at “only” $60-100 per metric ton would work instant miracles.
- WhompingWindows 7y ago
  Yeah, you're right. Even if we do vote, it's likely we will fail. Even if we ignore the US senate as a major, broken obstacle to climate legislation...will any said legislation actually be in time? will it be enforced? will it not be challenged by courts? Vote anyways, it's our duty to at least do that.

anigbrowl 7y ago

Automated market movements take place in milliseconds and those in developed countries mostly enjoy access to more or less instantaneous communication. The idea that the best response to political problems is to patiently vote every 2 years and expect that to have more of an impact that actions taken on shorter timescales is absurd. Voting is nice in theory but in practice is extremely amendable to corruption. 18th century technology isn't cutting it in the 21st century. In a rational world our legal code would be editable like Wikipedia built on top of blockchain. If you look at representative government as an information system it's screamingly obvious that it no longer functions properly and is ripe for abuse.

ComputerGuru 7y ago

That’s very high and noble but look at France and les Gilets jaunes. Even voting in people willing to bite the bullet and pull the trigger on much needed actions is not enough. And that’s a shame because the general consensus is that in terms of effectiveness (i.e. not accounting for economic fallout), simply directly taxing CO2 emissions at “only” $60-100 per metric ton would work instant miracles.

WhompingWindows 7y ago
Yeah, you're right. Even if we do vote, it's likely we will fail. Even if we ignore the US senate as a major, broken obstacle to climate legislation...will any said legislation actually be in time? will it be enforced? will it not be challenged by courts? Vote anyways, it's our duty to at least do that.