4 ms·

> Kind of amusing that this idea is posted here on Hacker News, the center of people seeking jobs and companies that are the definition of growth. But that's t

> Kind of amusing that this idea is posted here on Hacker News, the center of people seeking jobs and companies that are the definition of growth. But that's the good kind of growth, you see? I'm being sarcastic, of course. The ironic (and to me: annoying) thing about the really vocal moralists is that the concept of self-reflection seems to be entirely foreign to them. The problem is always with other people, and those other people just need to change, no matter at what cost.

seirl 7y ago
It is the good kind of growth, the dematerialization of the economy is a major factor in the lower energy elasticity in developed countries...
- mrpopo 7y ago
  It's absolutely not obvious whether digital technologies reduce energy consumption globally. E-mail reduced the amount of letters, but Amazon increased the amount of packages. Over-the-air TV broadcasts consumed way less energy than FHD personalized YouTube streams. Americans own more than 20 electronic products per household. etc.
- ckastner 7y ago
  What dematerialization? Facebook's entire business model is advertising, in other words: getting you to buy things. It used to be Google's and Amazon's entire business model, too, until they diversified into cloud services. It's the exact opposite of dematerialization. Edit: To clarify, I'm not at all against these things. On the contrary. My point is that among those people most vocal in demanding (sometimes radical) change from others, I frequently see a complete lack of self-reflection.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    It doesn't really matter whether the people calling for radical change are hypocrites or not. That has no material affect on whether there really is a need for radical change. It does make them rather annoying and gives those resistant to change something to criticise them over but it doesn't alter the facts of the situation.
    - ckastner 7y ago
      It affects the discussion of the situation and, by extension, the politics surrounding it, and thereby ultimately the one force that might actually effect the necessary change.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> The ironic (and to me: annoying) thing about the really vocal moralists is that the concept of self-reflection seems to be entirely foreign to them. The problem is always with other people, and those other people just need to change, no matter at what cost. That's your assumption, and I believe it's pretty wrong. Advocating for changes that go against your own immediate self-interest isn't lack of self-reflection; if anything, it's often a signal of a correctly pointing moral compass. No man is an island. Rare is the person whose friends and family work in the same booming industry as they do. Even if you benefit from exploiting other people, you might want to that exploitation to cease for the sake of your own life, or the society you live in.
- ckastner 7y ago
  I believe you misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about people advocating for change against their own immediate self-interest, I was talking about people suiting their own self-interest by advocating for other people to change, regardless of what that entails for those other people and, most importantly, without consideration for whether the advocacy is merited and just, given their own position. > Advocating for changes that go against your own immediate self-interest isn't lack of self-reflection; if anything, it's often a signal of a correctly pointing moral compass. People like to advocate for change a lot, and they often do so whilst working in the opposite direction of that change. I consider that hollow.

seirl 7y ago

It is the good kind of growth, the dematerialization of the economy is a major factor in the lower energy elasticity in developed countries...

mrpopo 7y ago
It's absolutely not obvious whether digital technologies reduce energy consumption globally. E-mail reduced the amount of letters, but Amazon increased the amount of packages. Over-the-air TV broadcasts consumed way less energy than FHD personalized YouTube streams. Americans own more than 20 electronic products per household. etc.
ckastner 7y ago
What dematerialization? Facebook's entire business model is advertising, in other words: getting you to buy things. It used to be Google's and Amazon's entire business model, too, until they diversified into cloud services. It's the exact opposite of dematerialization. Edit: To clarify, I'm not at all against these things. On the contrary. My point is that among those people most vocal in demanding (sometimes radical) change from others, I frequently see a complete lack of self-reflection.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  It doesn't really matter whether the people calling for radical change are hypocrites or not. That has no material affect on whether there really is a need for radical change. It does make them rather annoying and gives those resistant to change something to criticise them over but it doesn't alter the facts of the situation.
  - ckastner 7y ago
    It affects the discussion of the situation and, by extension, the politics surrounding it, and thereby ultimately the one force that might actually effect the necessary change.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> The ironic (and to me: annoying) thing about the really vocal moralists is that the concept of self-reflection seems to be entirely foreign to them. The problem is always with other people, and those other people just need to change, no matter at what cost. That's your assumption, and I believe it's pretty wrong. Advocating for changes that go against your own immediate self-interest isn't lack of self-reflection; if anything, it's often a signal of a correctly pointing moral compass. No man is an island. Rare is the person whose friends and family work in the same booming industry as they do. Even if you benefit from exploiting other people, you might want to that exploitation to cease for the sake of your own life, or the society you live in.

ckastner 7y ago
I believe you misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about people advocating for change against their own immediate self-interest, I was talking about people suiting their own self-interest by advocating for other people to change, regardless of what that entails for those other people and, most importantly, without consideration for whether the advocacy is merited and just, given their own position. > Advocating for changes that go against your own immediate self-interest isn't lack of self-reflection; if anything, it's often a signal of a correctly pointing moral compass. People like to advocate for change a lot, and they often do so whilst working in the opposite direction of that change. I consider that hollow.