5 ms·

> The daily shower would be hard to sustain in a world without fossil fuels. If this is really true, then I see no hope for us. Humans will not make sacrifices

> The daily shower would be hard to sustain in a world without fossil fuels. If this is really true, then I see no hope for us. Humans will not make sacrifices to their way of life voluntarily, and will politically punish anyone who makes them do so. When this comes before the voters, “I am the person taking away your hot showers” is going to be a losing stance. We can’t “conserve” our way out of this. We will need a breakthrough in clean energy tech. We need a world where the energy for hot showers is plentiful and clean.

billy_beef 6y ago
Austerity measures are passed all the time under guises of a balanced budget or trimming fat. When govts cut food stamps people die, I think govts cutting hot showers might be doable.
- austinjp 6y ago
  While I partly agree with you, unpopular political moves are weaponised during elections. If the opposition win they can revoke previous changes. This highlights issues around populism, and democracy in general.
MatekCopatek 6y ago
"Humans" aren't an inherent unchangeable force of nature. What you're describing is a result of living in the current socio-economical system, which can be changed.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I took it as implied that the change has to happen in the near future, before runaway climate change is a fate-sealing certainty. And we don’t need to change the current socio-economic system in any fundamental way; we just need to tax pollution so the cost isn’t externalized. This is a pretty simple, small change; just need the political will.
chimprich 6y ago
> Humans will not make sacrifices to their way of life voluntarily I don't think that's true at all. Currently (speaking from the UK at least) people have been making huge sacrifices in their lives for months. Although ostensibly this has been enforced, in reality it is impossible to police and has almost entirely been done voluntarily, through persuasion, and with much popular support. These sacrifices have been far greater than using less water in showers. > We can’t “conserve” our way out of this. We will need a breakthrough in clean energy tech. It's no use being defeatist about this when the problem is much greater than the solution. It's as if at the start of WWII politicians started saying, well, people won't tolerate being conscripted and having rationing, we might as well do nothing. Incidentally, I've heard wishes for breakthroughs in clean energy tech for decades, and we've since had major advances in things like solar, wind and batteries. We can hope for more advances in the coming years but we shouldn't bank on it - we have the technology already to tackle the problem.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  The examples you are giving are examples of short term sacrifices. However, take a look at the UK post WWII. Winston Churchill got voted out of office. The big thing people wanted was a return to normalcy and the way things had been before.
  - lmm 6y ago
    On the contrary, Atlee won the 1945 election on a platform of radical social reform: national healthcare, social security, and state-funded education.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    Normalcy as in voting in socialists?
- switch007 6y ago
  > Although ostensibly this has been enforced, in reality it is impossible to police and has almost entirely been done voluntarily, through persuasion, and with much popular support. I think the terrifying prospect of catching and spreading a virus was the greatest factor, having seen it spread elsewhere. Also our compliance hasn't come out of nowhere. I feel we've become ever more subservient and unquestioning over the last 19 years. Barely anyone refers to the legislation (some of which is quite easy to read), but instead Government "rules". A worrying trend.
Ma8ee 6y ago
It isn’t true. There isn’t any shortage of renewable energy sources, there’s just a cost of switching to them (and companies and states that depends on the income from the fossil fuels that resist the change).
- kgin 6y ago
  Even at this stage of development, the electricity needs of the US could be met by wind and solar. It would be extremely expensive, but it could be done.
  - Ma8ee 6y ago
    Oh yes, without any problems. And the cost shouldn't be exaggerated, in particular compared with the costs of doing nothing at all to reduce CO2 emissions.
fock 6y ago
You are aware that a shower every week or even clean water for consumption is _not_ available for 30% of "humanity": https://ourworldindata.org/water-access https://ourworldindata.org/water-access I am not sure, how "I am gonna give you clean water and one shower a week" is a loosing stance with these people. Granted they are not the typical voters relevant in gerrymandering and co, but they are humans - and since we alle strive for global democracy instead of neocolonialism and imperialism and killing the poor (aren't we?), these people are a significant proportion of humanity.
- thefounder 6y ago
  Many people have a hard life(lack of food, clean water, decent shelder, education etc) and many other people don't care. This happens at a very local level(i.e people living on the same street or even in the same building) let alone globally. It happens even between relatives. That 88" TV in my living room is definitely a better proposition than sending the money to some poor people. The communist system promised economic equality and we've seen how it ended-up. I believe that instead of cutting off shower time we should invest more in technology. Make the oil companies pay for for this transition.
  - fock 6y ago
    the communist systems so far were mostly autocratic and yeah, most of them were not worse after a transition period than the previous autocrats and provided far more social mobility and care for poor people than a lot of other systems... I'm not sure how you mentioning an 88" TV helps for anything but blaring out you're a far-right bigot. Btw: making the oil-companies pay at this point means no dividends from them immediately and them eventually folding very fast - how do you propose they pay for that transition then (especially with most of past dividends safely stored awy in trusts on Panama)? You could always tax fortunes I guess...
fulafel 6y ago
Humans make voluntary uncomfortable changes to their way of life all the time. They move to other countries / cities, break up and form new relationships, quit or pick up religion, become vegan, move to cabins from cities or vice versa, start families, volunteer to fight in wars etc etc. Whether the changes perceived as voluntary or not is highly subjective. Shortening you shower time can feel like too small a change to feel like a meaningful, if anything.
- thefounder 6y ago
  >> "Humans make voluntary uncomfortable changes to their way of life all the time" --- hoping their life will eventually improve(i.e work hard, make more money, then move to a nice neighbourhood where you can enjoy the fruits of your hard work). The religious people hope for a better life in heaven and so on. What's the incentive to for a worse showering experience? What do you get in return?
  - fulafel 6y ago
    Obviously the fight against climate change and saving untold billions of people from misery and death not to mention the rest of the biosphere. And everything that comes with that (like feeling better about yourself and the social/psychgological benefits from being part of a movement for good).
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Monetary savings would probably be the main motivator for most people. Being seen as virtuous is also a huge motivating factor. That kind of shower being installed by default in hotels, rental properties, and new construction puts a tiny barrier to people being motivated enough to switch.
- chongli 6y ago
  I don’t know about those who volunteer to fight in wars but I’m pretty confident that people become vegans/environmentalists when the social benefits outweigh the costs of doing so. It’s not a coincidence that veganism and environmentalism cluster around left wing ideologies. For a right wing person in a right wing area to become a vegan would have a social cost, not a social benefit, and thus is much less likely to happen.
kgin 6y ago
The reaction against the shutdowns in the US have made me realize this is 100% correct. We can’t even address an actual situation happening this minute. We have no chance of finding the political will to address something where the consequences are years or decades away if it means asking people to do without.
- rocky1138 6y ago
  There are many more countries around the world and most got on just fine with the shutdowns, lockdowns, and reduction in services.
  - netsharc 6y ago
    The threat of potential death within 2 weeks probably contributed to this. And after a few weeks people were getting antsy and screaming the need to go back to normal they assumed they'd get after 2-3 weeks of lockdown...
  - kgin 6y ago
    Absolutely, and as with the Paris accord and every other attempt at taking action, the United States was the odd one out. Our culture is a unique mixture of “you can’t tell me what to do” independence and “let me speak with the manager” entitlement. It powers a lot of the great things about the United States, but also makes it hard to accomplish anything requiring doing without.

billy_beef 6y ago

Austerity measures are passed all the time under guises of a balanced budget or trimming fat. When govts cut food stamps people die, I think govts cutting hot showers might be doable.

austinjp 6y ago
While I partly agree with you, unpopular political moves are weaponised during elections. If the opposition win they can revoke previous changes. This highlights issues around populism, and democracy in general.

MatekCopatek 6y ago

"Humans" aren't an inherent unchangeable force of nature. What you're describing is a result of living in the current socio-economical system, which can be changed.

throwaway894345 6y ago
I took it as implied that the change has to happen in the near future, before runaway climate change is a fate-sealing certainty. And we don’t need to change the current socio-economic system in any fundamental way; we just need to tax pollution so the cost isn’t externalized. This is a pretty simple, small change; just need the political will.

chimprich 6y ago

> Humans will not make sacrifices to their way of life voluntarily I don't think that's true at all. Currently (speaking from the UK at least) people have been making huge sacrifices in their lives for months. Although ostensibly this has been enforced, in reality it is impossible to police and has almost entirely been done voluntarily, through persuasion, and with much popular support. These sacrifices have been far greater than using less water in showers. > We can’t “conserve” our way out of this. We will need a breakthrough in clean energy tech. It's no use being defeatist about this when the problem is much greater than the solution. It's as if at the start of WWII politicians started saying, well, people won't tolerate being conscripted and having rationing, we might as well do nothing. Incidentally, I've heard wishes for breakthroughs in clean energy tech for decades, and we've since had major advances in things like solar, wind and batteries. We can hope for more advances in the coming years but we shouldn't bank on it - we have the technology already to tackle the problem.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
The examples you are giving are examples of short term sacrifices. However, take a look at the UK post WWII. Winston Churchill got voted out of office. The big thing people wanted was a return to normalcy and the way things had been before.
- lmm 6y ago
  On the contrary, Atlee won the 1945 election on a platform of radical social reform: national healthcare, social security, and state-funded education.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Normalcy as in voting in socialists?
switch007 6y ago
> Although ostensibly this has been enforced, in reality it is impossible to police and has almost entirely been done voluntarily, through persuasion, and with much popular support. I think the terrifying prospect of catching and spreading a virus was the greatest factor, having seen it spread elsewhere. Also our compliance hasn't come out of nowhere. I feel we've become ever more subservient and unquestioning over the last 19 years. Barely anyone refers to the legislation (some of which is quite easy to read), but instead Government "rules". A worrying trend.

Ma8ee 6y ago

It isn’t true. There isn’t any shortage of renewable energy sources, there’s just a cost of switching to them (and companies and states that depends on the income from the fossil fuels that resist the change).

kgin 6y ago
Even at this stage of development, the electricity needs of the US could be met by wind and solar. It would be extremely expensive, but it could be done.
- Ma8ee 6y ago
  Oh yes, without any problems. And the cost shouldn't be exaggerated, in particular compared with the costs of doing nothing at all to reduce CO2 emissions.

fock 6y ago

You are aware that a shower every week or even clean water for consumption is _not_ available for 30% of "humanity": https://ourworldindata.org/water-access https://ourworldindata.org/water-access I am not sure, how "I am gonna give you clean water and one shower a week" is a loosing stance with these people. Granted they are not the typical voters relevant in gerrymandering and co, but they are humans - and since we alle strive for global democracy instead of neocolonialism and imperialism and killing the poor (aren't we?), these people are a significant proportion of humanity.

thefounder 6y ago
Many people have a hard life(lack of food, clean water, decent shelder, education etc) and many other people don't care. This happens at a very local level(i.e people living on the same street or even in the same building) let alone globally. It happens even between relatives. That 88" TV in my living room is definitely a better proposition than sending the money to some poor people. The communist system promised economic equality and we've seen how it ended-up. I believe that instead of cutting off shower time we should invest more in technology. Make the oil companies pay for for this transition.
- fock 6y ago
  the communist systems so far were mostly autocratic and yeah, most of them were not worse after a transition period than the previous autocrats and provided far more social mobility and care for poor people than a lot of other systems... I'm not sure how you mentioning an 88" TV helps for anything but blaring out you're a far-right bigot. Btw: making the oil-companies pay at this point means no dividends from them immediately and them eventually folding very fast - how do you propose they pay for that transition then (especially with most of past dividends safely stored awy in trusts on Panama)? You could always tax fortunes I guess...

fulafel 6y ago

Humans make voluntary uncomfortable changes to their way of life all the time. They move to other countries / cities, break up and form new relationships, quit or pick up religion, become vegan, move to cabins from cities or vice versa, start families, volunteer to fight in wars etc etc. Whether the changes perceived as voluntary or not is highly subjective. Shortening you shower time can feel like too small a change to feel like a meaningful, if anything.

thefounder 6y ago
>> "Humans make voluntary uncomfortable changes to their way of life all the time" --- hoping their life will eventually improve(i.e work hard, make more money, then move to a nice neighbourhood where you can enjoy the fruits of your hard work). The religious people hope for a better life in heaven and so on. What's the incentive to for a worse showering experience? What do you get in return?
- fulafel 6y ago
  Obviously the fight against climate change and saving untold billions of people from misery and death not to mention the rest of the biosphere. And everything that comes with that (like feeling better about yourself and the social/psychgological benefits from being part of a movement for good).
- Spivak 6y ago
  Monetary savings would probably be the main motivator for most people. Being seen as virtuous is also a huge motivating factor. That kind of shower being installed by default in hotels, rental properties, and new construction puts a tiny barrier to people being motivated enough to switch.
chongli 6y ago
I don’t know about those who volunteer to fight in wars but I’m pretty confident that people become vegans/environmentalists when the social benefits outweigh the costs of doing so. It’s not a coincidence that veganism and environmentalism cluster around left wing ideologies. For a right wing person in a right wing area to become a vegan would have a social cost, not a social benefit, and thus is much less likely to happen.

kgin 6y ago

The reaction against the shutdowns in the US have made me realize this is 100% correct. We can’t even address an actual situation happening this minute. We have no chance of finding the political will to address something where the consequences are years or decades away if it means asking people to do without.

rocky1138 6y ago
There are many more countries around the world and most got on just fine with the shutdowns, lockdowns, and reduction in services.
- netsharc 6y ago
  The threat of potential death within 2 weeks probably contributed to this. And after a few weeks people were getting antsy and screaming the need to go back to normal they assumed they'd get after 2-3 weeks of lockdown...
- kgin 6y ago
  Absolutely, and as with the Paris accord and every other attempt at taking action, the United States was the odd one out. Our culture is a unique mixture of “you can’t tell me what to do” independence and “let me speak with the manager” entitlement. It powers a lot of the great things about the United States, but also makes it hard to accomplish anything requiring doing without.