5 ms·

> But contracting the growth prospects for India by 25% over the next decade means consigning millions of people to crippling poverty. People say this, but I'l

by titzer 6y ago

> But contracting the growth prospects for India by 25% over the next decade means consigning millions of people to crippling poverty. People say this, but I'll note that humans have lived through "crippling poverty" for most of our 2 million year existence. It is only crippling poverty by today's distortion lens (also a shifting baseline). We should focus on what people really need to live quality lives, which is: good health (read: access to modern healthcare, freedom from pollution, disease), good food (read: freedom first from starvation, from malnutrition, poor diet), shelter from the elements, and then the rest of Maslow's hierarchy. Cars, TV, home appliances, and the whole lot of today's energy-hungry living isn't sustainable, and I'd argue isn't even the thing we should be shooting for. People of the past lived very different and satisfying lives that we simply can't imagine because, frankly, we are spoiled. People lived in tribes and hunted with spears for 100,000 years at least. And you know what, they beat those drums, painted their faces, tracked the stars, and contrary to whatever we might believe from our high place of "development" they actually enjoyed their lives. This is a totally other conversation, but let's just say, I disagree with a lot of what you say about money and what it means to people. Money's new. We've been around a lot longer.

darawk 6y ago
> People say this, but I'll note that humans have lived through "crippling poverty" for most of our 2 million year existence. It is only crippling poverty by today's distortion lens (also a shifting baseline). That's very easy to say. But it's hard for me not to notice that you're commenting on web forums, which means you probably haven't given up on the creature comforts of modernity. If you're not willing to do it, what gives you the right to tell half of India to? > We should focus on what people really need to live quality lives, which is: good health (read: access to modern healthcare, freedom from pollution, disease), good food (read: freedom first from starvation, from malnutrition, poor diet), shelter from the elements, and then the rest of Maslow's hierarchy. Cars, TV, home appliances, and the whole lot of today's energy-hungry living isn't sustainable, and I'd argue isn't even the thing we should be shooting for. People of the past lived very different and satisfying lives that we simply can't imagine because, frankly, we are spoiled. People lived in tribes and hunted with spears for 100,000 years at least. And you know what, they beat those drums, painted their faces, tracked the stars, and contrary to whatever we might believe from our high place of "development" they actually enjoyed their lives. I see a whole lot of people saying things like this, and literally no one actually living it. The contradiction is hard to ignore. Maybe the old way of living wasn't really that nice.
- titzer 6y ago
  > I see a whole lot of people saying things like this, and literally no one actually living it. The contradiction is hard to ignore. Maybe the old way of living wasn't really that nice. Well you quite obviously are not going to due to selection bias. But yes, there are people who have tried to simplify their lives down, both now and since the dawn of the modern era. Pick any level of tech you like: log cabin, lean to, nothing but a knife. People try. Some succeed. Sometimes they write books, sometimes books are written about them. Very few post on hackernews. Nowadays it's pretty much impossible to escape the modern world, so I wouldn't hold my breath for naturalist/primitivists to rise up and take over the world. But I'm not really arguing for anything. We're headed back to sustainability one way or another.
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  >That's very easy to say. But it's hard for me not to notice that you're commenting on web forums, which means you probably haven't given up on the creature comforts of modernity. If you're not willing to do it, what gives you the right to tell half of India to? Which is another way to say: "How dare you criticize capitalism from your smartphone?" This argument is so old, overused and has been debunked so much already, but I'll do it once again for you, even though it would take the intellectual honesty and introspection capacity of an 8 years old to realize it's a really bad argument. 1) We don't choose to be born and live in this society. It just happens, and we don't get to learn the survival skills necessary to do without it. Therefore, one could say we're stuck in it. Especially considering nowadays everything is property of someone, you can't just go and take a piece of forest to have your primitive tribe there. 2) Technology and innovation ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE to Capitalism. Repeat it once again if you need. Soviets had a space program too you realize that? Saying that Capitalism is the only way to have innovation, because someone invented iPhone under Capitalism means having no idea of what false correlation is. I'd suggest studying the very basis of statistics before making such claims. >Maybe the old way of living wasn't really that nice. Maybe we can take the best from both worlds. Lose the hunger for profit, the abstract finance, the exploitation and keep the progress.
  - darawk 6y ago
mftrhu 6y ago
> People say this, but I'll note that humans have lived through "crippling poverty" for most of our 2 million year existence. It is only crippling poverty by today's distortion lens (also a shifting baseline). Humans have died through crippling poverty for most of our existence, and that baseline, however shifted, is still not enough to ensure that everyone - in both developing and developed countries - can have good health, good food, and shelter. Sure, this is mostly due to inequal resource distribution, but I don't believe that the crisis caused by climate change will rectify that, at least by itself.
- titzer 6y ago
  We are far beyond the carrying capacity of Earth at this point, I am sorry to say. Honestly, I feel horrible about the future and I get the impression I am not the only one. Please resist the urge to read more into what I wrote than what I wrote.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    The estimated extreme maximum carrying capacity of the Earth is 1 trillion people. This limit is set by direct thermal pollution. If one sticks with agriculture to make food, the limit has been estimated to be around 150 billion people. Africa alone could feed 15 billion if their agriculture achieved yields already demonstrated elsewhere in the world.
  - bccdee 6y ago
    What's this Malthusianism doing in the 21st century? Can you cite some data suggesting that Earth is incapable of feeding and housing a population of ten billion at least? We have a surplus of food and a surplus of living space, and despite the ongoing energy crisis, there's every indication that renewables will be able to support our entire society once we've pumped enough money into them.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      We're not sustainably farming, though. Just because we've staved off collapse for a few decades with technological tricks, doesn't mean the argument was wrong.
bccdee 6y ago
> Cars, TV, home appliances, and the whole lot of today's energy-hungry living isn't sustainable It seems like you're gunning for some weird primitivist angle that just isn't realistic. These problems are solvable with good public transit infrastructure and a few thousand hectares of solar panels. Obviously there's no escaping some impact on our lifestyle, but "hey, destitution isn't so bad when you have family" is a bizarre leap out of left field. No climate scientists are realistically suggesting that we "end home appliances."
andrey_utkin 6y ago
> We should focus on what people really need to live quality lives, which is... Which is what maybe ~1% of the most wealthy and lucky of human population currently get, some of the time. > and then the rest of Maslow's hierarchy. Oh wow, I like Maslow's "hierarchy". Although satisfaction of the human needs laid out there defy "provision", they are to be earned and achieved by the person. > Cars, TV, home appliances, and the whole lot of today's energy-hungry living isn't sustainable, and I'd argue isn't even the thing we should be shooting for. The very things which people invented, and are willing to pay for, to further themselves in the satisfaction of their needs. Which needs are laid out in Maslow's theory of motivation. I presume you do realise this. Could you please explain how do you resolve this conflict? A. Provision every human being with complete satisfaction of entire set of needs (bodily, security, society, esteem, knowledge, beauty, self-actualization and transcendence). B. Take away from people, and punish them for having devices which are universally known to affordably address specific and provably existing human needs. How do you propose to do A (at all), and then insist on B? Am I right that you are a communist? Would you like to have a chance to live in the USSR?

by titzer 6y ago

darawk 6y ago

> People say this, but I'll note that humans have lived through "crippling poverty" for most of our 2 million year existence. It is only crippling poverty by today's distortion lens (also a shifting baseline). That's very easy to say. But it's hard for me not to notice that you're commenting on web forums, which means you probably haven't given up on the creature comforts of modernity. If you're not willing to do it, what gives you the right to tell half of India to? > We should focus on what people really need to live quality lives, which is: good health (read: access to modern healthcare, freedom from pollution, disease), good food (read: freedom first from starvation, from malnutrition, poor diet), shelter from the elements, and then the rest of Maslow's hierarchy. Cars, TV, home appliances, and the whole lot of today's energy-hungry living isn't sustainable, and I'd argue isn't even the thing we should be shooting for. People of the past lived very different and satisfying lives that we simply can't imagine because, frankly, we are spoiled. People lived in tribes and hunted with spears for 100,000 years at least. And you know what, they beat those drums, painted their faces, tracked the stars, and contrary to whatever we might believe from our high place of "development" they actually enjoyed their lives. I see a whole lot of people saying things like this, and literally no one actually living it. The contradiction is hard to ignore. Maybe the old way of living wasn't really that nice.

titzer 6y ago
> I see a whole lot of people saying things like this, and literally no one actually living it. The contradiction is hard to ignore. Maybe the old way of living wasn't really that nice. Well you quite obviously are not going to due to selection bias. But yes, there are people who have tried to simplify their lives down, both now and since the dawn of the modern era. Pick any level of tech you like: log cabin, lean to, nothing but a knife. People try. Some succeed. Sometimes they write books, sometimes books are written about them. Very few post on hackernews. Nowadays it's pretty much impossible to escape the modern world, so I wouldn't hold my breath for naturalist/primitivists to rise up and take over the world. But I'm not really arguing for anything. We're headed back to sustainability one way or another.
pietrovismara 6y ago
>That's very easy to say. But it's hard for me not to notice that you're commenting on web forums, which means you probably haven't given up on the creature comforts of modernity. If you're not willing to do it, what gives you the right to tell half of India to? Which is another way to say: "How dare you criticize capitalism from your smartphone?" This argument is so old, overused and has been debunked so much already, but I'll do it once again for you, even though it would take the intellectual honesty and introspection capacity of an 8 years old to realize it's a really bad argument. 1) We don't choose to be born and live in this society. It just happens, and we don't get to learn the survival skills necessary to do without it. Therefore, one could say we're stuck in it. Especially considering nowadays everything is property of someone, you can't just go and take a piece of forest to have your primitive tribe there. 2) Technology and innovation ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE to Capitalism. Repeat it once again if you need. Soviets had a space program too you realize that? Saying that Capitalism is the only way to have innovation, because someone invented iPhone under Capitalism means having no idea of what false correlation is. I'd suggest studying the very basis of statistics before making such claims. >Maybe the old way of living wasn't really that nice. Maybe we can take the best from both worlds. Lose the hunger for profit, the abstract finance, the exploitation and keep the progress.
- darawk 6y ago

mftrhu 6y ago

> People say this, but I'll note that humans have lived through "crippling poverty" for most of our 2 million year existence. It is only crippling poverty by today's distortion lens (also a shifting baseline). Humans have died through crippling poverty for most of our existence, and that baseline, however shifted, is still not enough to ensure that everyone - in both developing and developed countries - can have good health, good food, and shelter. Sure, this is mostly due to inequal resource distribution, but I don't believe that the crisis caused by climate change will rectify that, at least by itself.

titzer 6y ago
We are far beyond the carrying capacity of Earth at this point, I am sorry to say. Honestly, I feel horrible about the future and I get the impression I am not the only one. Please resist the urge to read more into what I wrote than what I wrote.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  The estimated extreme maximum carrying capacity of the Earth is 1 trillion people. This limit is set by direct thermal pollution. If one sticks with agriculture to make food, the limit has been estimated to be around 150 billion people. Africa alone could feed 15 billion if their agriculture achieved yields already demonstrated elsewhere in the world.
- bccdee 6y ago
  What's this Malthusianism doing in the 21st century? Can you cite some data suggesting that Earth is incapable of feeding and housing a population of ten billion at least? We have a surplus of food and a surplus of living space, and despite the ongoing energy crisis, there's every indication that renewables will be able to support our entire society once we've pumped enough money into them.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    We're not sustainably farming, though. Just because we've staved off collapse for a few decades with technological tricks, doesn't mean the argument was wrong.

bccdee 6y ago

> Cars, TV, home appliances, and the whole lot of today's energy-hungry living isn't sustainable It seems like you're gunning for some weird primitivist angle that just isn't realistic. These problems are solvable with good public transit infrastructure and a few thousand hectares of solar panels. Obviously there's no escaping some impact on our lifestyle, but "hey, destitution isn't so bad when you have family" is a bizarre leap out of left field. No climate scientists are realistically suggesting that we "end home appliances."

andrey_utkin 6y ago

> We should focus on what people really need to live quality lives, which is... Which is what maybe ~1% of the most wealthy and lucky of human population currently get, some of the time. > and then the rest of Maslow's hierarchy. Oh wow, I like Maslow's "hierarchy". Although satisfaction of the human needs laid out there defy "provision", they are to be earned and achieved by the person. > Cars, TV, home appliances, and the whole lot of today's energy-hungry living isn't sustainable, and I'd argue isn't even the thing we should be shooting for. The very things which people invented, and are willing to pay for, to further themselves in the satisfaction of their needs. Which needs are laid out in Maslow's theory of motivation. I presume you do realise this. Could you please explain how do you resolve this conflict? A. Provision every human being with complete satisfaction of entire set of needs (bodily, security, society, esteem, knowledge, beauty, self-actualization and transcendence). B. Take away from people, and punish them for having devices which are universally known to affordably address specific and provably existing human needs. How do you propose to do A (at all), and then insist on B? Am I right that you are a communist? Would you like to have a chance to live in the USSR?