14 ms·

This is the worst paragraph of the whole article: > Perhaps one of the least fashionable predictions I made nine years ago was that ‘the ecological footprint o

This is the worst paragraph of the whole article: > Perhaps one of the least fashionable predictions I made nine years ago was that ‘the ecological footprint of human activity is probably shrinking’ and ‘we are getting more sustainable, not less, in the way we use the planet’. That is to say: our population and economy would grow, but we’d learn how to reduce what we take from the planet. And so it has proved. An MIT scientist, Andrew McAfee, recently documented this in a book called More from Less, showing how some nations are beginning to use less stuff: less metal, less water, less land. Not just in proportion to productivity: less stuff overall. ...and what you're leaving out here is that this is far too little, far too late. This is like noting a decrease in the number of iceburg collisions in the last hours before the Titanic sank. This is NOT a cause for optimism. We're destroying the environment at a slower rate, but that doesn't mean we're not destroying the environment.

tucaz 7y ago
How much can we use and at what rate can we use resources from the planet?
- Filligree 7y ago
  About half of what we're doing, as a rule of thumb.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  The answer to this question is far too vast and complex for a hacker news comment. The real problem is that the people who hold the levers of power to create change are far too invested in the status quo. They may have an ethical and humanitarian reason to respond to the scientific communities concerns and data, but they have literally every other single interest pointed in the exact opposite direction. I think we're rapidly approaching the point where the youngest people are going to abandon "civil" methods of change. They're being faced with a world they won't be able to live in, and are derided, mocked, parodied, and of course denied any kind of power to exact the changes needed.
  - tucaz 7y ago
    What kind of power is exactly being denied and to whom? Who says what changes are needed and when?
    - throwlaplace 7y ago
      >What kind of power is exactly being denied and to whom? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering... >Who says what changes are needed and when? this is a completely disingenuous question (both are really) since we all here are aware of climate change abatement recommendations
    - tucaz 7y ago
      Alright! How do we fix it, then?
      - forgetfulusr 7y ago
        Practice self sufficiency. Stop relying on companies to gather your food, distill your water, even bring the water to your tap. Expect it all to shut off. No fixing it now, get ready for when it hits the fan. We will adapt or die. Let's hope we can keep some of this knowledge around, oh and those of you with your nice bunkers, dont forget to pass it on to your kids. Lets try not to make the same mistakes next time eh? Good luck and have fun all.
      - FussyZeus 7y ago
        If you're sincerely asking these questions, I suggest you read up on climate change at large. This an incredibly large and dense topic and simply asking "how do we fix the planet" as though it's some busted code isn't productive for anyone involved.
      - tucaz 7y ago
        It is an honest question. I have read a bunch about the subject and I can’t find any answer that tells individuals what they can personally do without forcing anything into others. Do you have suggestions?
- flavor8 7y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712 has a pretty good discussion of this question.
  - ailideex 7y ago
    > Compare the lifestyle of a subsistence farmer with that of a wealthy city-dweller in a developed country. More land is required to grow the city dweller's food Maybe I'm misreading this - but is the productivity of Subsistence farming so much better than that of more industrial farming methods, and if so why would we not just switch all farms to using same methods that Subsistence farmers do?
    - mcguire 7y ago
      "More land is required to grow the city dweller's food, more materials are used to build the city dweller's home and workplace, more energy is required for transport, heating and cooling." Presumably, American city dwellers waste more food than subsistence farmers, but that factor is dwarfed by such measures as CO2 production. As the article describes.
      - ailideex 7y ago
        The claim is not that they waste more food but as you quoted that "More land is required to grow the city dweller's food". Which as I pointed out I find hard to believe and would like to see supporting evidence for. Futher, if the CO2 production of subsistence farming methods for the same output is so much lower - why not switch all food production to those? I really would like to see something to support the claims in this article.
    - saalweachter 7y ago
      Without digging into the topic in depth, ten will get you twenty it is primarily a question of diet rather than technique. Maybe less food waste. The lessons from the diet will be ones you probably already know (eat less meat, especially beef), and not all good. The reasons for less food waste aren't particularly useful, unless you want to adopt the hyperlocal production implicit in subsistence farming.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  We've used up our budget of CO2 we can add to the atmosphere without major consequences. Anything we add from here on out is CO2 we have to recapture and put back, or live with even more expensive consequences. Water is more of a local problem. Desalination is getting cheaper, but any region that just drains their aquifers without transitioning to either a sustainable amount of water use or a sustainable water source will be in for a lot of pain. Our consumption of metals is honestly fine. Most are easy to recycle, and it looks like we will figure out asteroid mining before we come close to running out of anything. Oil will take care of itself through economics as long as we figure out how to (re)capture the released CO2.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Given this is obviously too vague/broad a question to be answerable, I get the feeling you're just asking so you can say, "Gotcha, you don't know, environmentalism is bullshit!" On the off-chance that you are actually asking this question in good faith to try to learn something, I'd start by looking at the Wikipedia page on Global Warming[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ailideex 7y ago
    I think the question asked is rather important if we want to know where we should get to. Maybe it is not easy to answer - but then you can rather ask how do we know it is too rapidly now - and then really you can answer the question by saying we know if X happens it is too rapidly, so we can only use it at a rate below what would cause X to happen. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, global warming is not caused by the rate at which we are using natural resources but by the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      One of the major forms of natural resource is ancient sequestered carbon, held in easily usable hydrocarbon form, that we consume (burn) to put that CO2 into the atmosphere.
      - ailideex 7y ago
        Yes, and due to CO2 there is presumably no ideal rate at which to use it other than 0. Great. If the person I replied to meant oil, they should have said oil. Not resources.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > I think the question asked is rather important if we want to know where we should get to. Maybe it is not easy to answer - but then you can rather ask how do we know it is too rapidly now - and then really you can answer the question by saying we know if X happens it is too rapidly, so we can only use it at a rate below what would cause X to happen. I don't think the question asked is important, because it's not even specific enough to be coherent. For starters, what is X? If X is "oil", the answer is a lot different from if X is "sunlight", and asking about "resources" as if that broad category is a coherent entity is not going to yield any useful information. > Also, correct me if I'm wrong, global warming is not caused by the rate at which we are using natural resources but by the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere. Well, yes. But they're related questions: consuming fossil fuels and meat produces a lot of our carbon emissions.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  There's many measures of environmental impact, some good, some less so, some that try to be wide ranging others more focused. One of the oldest is Earth Overshoot Day which imperfectly marks the point each year, that we pass the earth's ability to recover what we have used that year. Or that we go into ecological debt each year if you prefer. We've been running a debt, and accelerating its growth since the seventies. It gets earlier nearly every year. This year was July 29th. In 1987 it was October 23rd. So right now we need 1.7 earths to sustainably supply what we are taking. This measure focuses on renewable resources. Our point of non-sustainability may worsen markedly if we include non-renewable resources and other forms of pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day
jellicle 7y ago
But the least fashionable prediction is just completely false. No one is using less stuff. The book he cites just notes that that less stuff is being consumed by manufacturing within the borders of the continental United States of America, while ignoring the fact that all the manufacturing for Americans has moved to other countries. It's a completely bogus argument in the book, being repurposed as a completely bogus argument on this webpage. Just pure fiction. We are using natural resources at a rate which is constantly increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing as well.
intended 7y ago
Even that is wrong - we aren’t slowing the rate we are damaging the environment- that is fated to go up. What we are doing is reducing the rate at which our damage grows. Reduction in acceleration is not reduction in velocity or reversal.

tucaz 7y ago

How much can we use and at what rate can we use resources from the planet?

Filligree 7y ago
About half of what we're doing, as a rule of thumb.
FussyZeus 7y ago
The answer to this question is far too vast and complex for a hacker news comment. The real problem is that the people who hold the levers of power to create change are far too invested in the status quo. They may have an ethical and humanitarian reason to respond to the scientific communities concerns and data, but they have literally every other single interest pointed in the exact opposite direction. I think we're rapidly approaching the point where the youngest people are going to abandon "civil" methods of change. They're being faced with a world they won't be able to live in, and are derided, mocked, parodied, and of course denied any kind of power to exact the changes needed.
- tucaz 7y ago
  What kind of power is exactly being denied and to whom? Who says what changes are needed and when?
  - throwlaplace 7y ago
    >What kind of power is exactly being denied and to whom? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/what-is-gerrymandering... >Who says what changes are needed and when? this is a completely disingenuous question (both are really) since we all here are aware of climate change abatement recommendations
  - tucaz 7y ago
    Alright! How do we fix it, then?
    - forgetfulusr 7y ago
      Practice self sufficiency. Stop relying on companies to gather your food, distill your water, even bring the water to your tap. Expect it all to shut off. No fixing it now, get ready for when it hits the fan. We will adapt or die. Let's hope we can keep some of this knowledge around, oh and those of you with your nice bunkers, dont forget to pass it on to your kids. Lets try not to make the same mistakes next time eh? Good luck and have fun all.
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      If you're sincerely asking these questions, I suggest you read up on climate change at large. This an incredibly large and dense topic and simply asking "how do we fix the planet" as though it's some busted code isn't productive for anyone involved.
    - tucaz 7y ago
      It is an honest question. I have read a bunch about the subject and I can’t find any answer that tells individuals what they can personally do without forcing anything into others. Do you have suggestions?
flavor8 7y ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712 has a pretty good discussion of this question.
- ailideex 7y ago
  > Compare the lifestyle of a subsistence farmer with that of a wealthy city-dweller in a developed country. More land is required to grow the city dweller's food Maybe I'm misreading this - but is the productivity of Subsistence farming so much better than that of more industrial farming methods, and if so why would we not just switch all farms to using same methods that Subsistence farmers do?
  - mcguire 7y ago
    "More land is required to grow the city dweller's food, more materials are used to build the city dweller's home and workplace, more energy is required for transport, heating and cooling." Presumably, American city dwellers waste more food than subsistence farmers, but that factor is dwarfed by such measures as CO2 production. As the article describes.
    - ailideex 7y ago
      The claim is not that they waste more food but as you quoted that "More land is required to grow the city dweller's food". Which as I pointed out I find hard to believe and would like to see supporting evidence for. Futher, if the CO2 production of subsistence farming methods for the same output is so much lower - why not switch all food production to those? I really would like to see something to support the claims in this article.
  - saalweachter 7y ago
    Without digging into the topic in depth, ten will get you twenty it is primarily a question of diet rather than technique. Maybe less food waste. The lessons from the diet will be ones you probably already know (eat less meat, especially beef), and not all good. The reasons for less food waste aren't particularly useful, unless you want to adopt the hyperlocal production implicit in subsistence farming.
wongarsu 7y ago
We've used up our budget of CO2 we can add to the atmosphere without major consequences. Anything we add from here on out is CO2 we have to recapture and put back, or live with even more expensive consequences. Water is more of a local problem. Desalination is getting cheaper, but any region that just drains their aquifers without transitioning to either a sustainable amount of water use or a sustainable water source will be in for a lot of pain. Our consumption of metals is honestly fine. Most are easy to recycle, and it looks like we will figure out asteroid mining before we come close to running out of anything. Oil will take care of itself through economics as long as we figure out how to (re)capture the released CO2.
kerkeslager 7y ago
Given this is obviously too vague/broad a question to be answerable, I get the feeling you're just asking so you can say, "Gotcha, you don't know, environmentalism is bullshit!" On the off-chance that you are actually asking this question in good faith to try to learn something, I'd start by looking at the Wikipedia page on Global Warming[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ailideex 7y ago
  I think the question asked is rather important if we want to know where we should get to. Maybe it is not easy to answer - but then you can rather ask how do we know it is too rapidly now - and then really you can answer the question by saying we know if X happens it is too rapidly, so we can only use it at a rate below what would cause X to happen. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, global warming is not caused by the rate at which we are using natural resources but by the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    One of the major forms of natural resource is ancient sequestered carbon, held in easily usable hydrocarbon form, that we consume (burn) to put that CO2 into the atmosphere.
    - ailideex 7y ago
      Yes, and due to CO2 there is presumably no ideal rate at which to use it other than 0. Great. If the person I replied to meant oil, they should have said oil. Not resources.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > I think the question asked is rather important if we want to know where we should get to. Maybe it is not easy to answer - but then you can rather ask how do we know it is too rapidly now - and then really you can answer the question by saying we know if X happens it is too rapidly, so we can only use it at a rate below what would cause X to happen. I don't think the question asked is important, because it's not even specific enough to be coherent. For starters, what is X? If X is "oil", the answer is a lot different from if X is "sunlight", and asking about "resources" as if that broad category is a coherent entity is not going to yield any useful information. > Also, correct me if I'm wrong, global warming is not caused by the rate at which we are using natural resources but by the amount of CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere. Well, yes. But they're related questions: consuming fossil fuels and meat produces a lot of our carbon emissions.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
There's many measures of environmental impact, some good, some less so, some that try to be wide ranging others more focused. One of the oldest is Earth Overshoot Day which imperfectly marks the point each year, that we pass the earth's ability to recover what we have used that year. Or that we go into ecological debt each year if you prefer. We've been running a debt, and accelerating its growth since the seventies. It gets earlier nearly every year. This year was July 29th. In 1987 it was October 23rd. So right now we need 1.7 earths to sustainably supply what we are taking. This measure focuses on renewable resources. Our point of non-sustainability may worsen markedly if we include non-renewable resources and other forms of pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day

jellicle 7y ago

But the least fashionable prediction is just completely false. No one is using less stuff. The book he cites just notes that that less stuff is being consumed by manufacturing within the borders of the continental United States of America, while ignoring the fact that all the manufacturing for Americans has moved to other countries. It's a completely bogus argument in the book, being repurposed as a completely bogus argument on this webpage. Just pure fiction. We are using natural resources at a rate which is constantly increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing as well.

intended 7y ago

Even that is wrong - we aren’t slowing the rate we are damaging the environment- that is fated to go up. What we are doing is reducing the rate at which our damage grows. Reduction in acceleration is not reduction in velocity or reversal.