8 ms·

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending to

>Cutting back on CO2 emissions would clearly work, but it’s expensive and painful. This is so painfully backwards. "Saving the Planet" doesn't mean spending tons of money and doing tons of work, quite the opposite. The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate that less activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet. It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the Planet out of balance, and for some reason we think we're going to fix things by doing even more. The less active and industrious human beings are, the less they obsess over money and work, the less taxing we are on the Planet.

sushisource 5y ago
IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way. People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern agrarian societal model. So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is interested in solving (or, maybe more accurately, needs to solve).
- LAC-Tech 5y ago
  I mean we could do less. COVID showed that (a lot of us ) really don't need to be commuting and flying all that much. It's tragic that 'society' wasted a perfectly good pandemic by not learning any of the things it showed us.
  - rkk3 5y ago
    If anything I was more surprised at the lack of impact. Emissions only fell by around 6.4% https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > COVID showed that (a lot of us ) really don't need to be commuting and flying all that much. It's tragic that 'society' wasted a perfectly good pandemic by not learning any of the things it showed us. I'm flying a lot more post Covid. It showed me how precious travel and meeting people face to face and experiencing new cultures is. Based on current air travel statistics, I'm not alone.
- calibas 5y ago
  This seems to be the standard response, I've certainly heard it before, but all I'm suggesting is doing less. I'm not a luddite, I'm not arguing for a "pre-modern agrarian societal model", I'm arguing for a post-modern agrarian society that balances technology, industry and the ecosystem. We consume enormously more than we need, and far more than the Planet can handle. I feel like the one of the few sane people when I'm saying it's imperative that we lower our consumption right now.
  - slg 5y ago
    Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of the few sane people because you are of course technically right. However no one will listen to you because "even if that’s true, there’s no profit in thinking about it" as it is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There is no way to get a critical mass of people to return to an agrarian society until they have no other real choice because collectively modern consumption makes our individual lives more enjoyable. That is why reducing emissions is expensive and painful because the cheap and easy answer of just not consuming isn't feasible.
    - Swenrekcah 5y ago
      Some part of modern consumption however is not really making lives any more enjoyable at all, for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people would start buying more sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it more sensible for them individually.
      - slg 5y ago
        >to fill some internal void for people for a short while. You just answered your own point there. It makes people happy. Maybe that feeling is fleeting, but it is still a good feeling that people will not give up voluntarily unless there are no other options. >If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people would start buying more sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it more sensible for them individually. I don't disagree, but a carbon tax is in the expensive and painful bucket above not the cheap and easy one. It makes the low quality goods more expensive so people consume less of them. That is not people voluntarily giving up those good for the benefit of the planet.
- haswell 5y ago
  I think it's interesting, and here's why. Think about this as it relates to other common problems humans face like debt or the need to lose weight. I can put all of my energy and focus into making more money so I can get my debt under control, but that won't matter if I have really bad spending habits. I can put all of my energy into exercising more and burning the calories I take in, but that won't matter if I'm eating more calories than I can reasonably burn in a day. I'd argue that doing less is still doing something. It's just looking for a solution in a different place. It's focusing on the cause, instead of trying to put a band-aid on the effect. This falls into the category of "low hanging fruit", and one of the easiest potential sources of meaningful change. Inventing new things, increasing energy efficiency, etc. are all possible optimizations, but are not guaranteed. Eating less, spending less, and burning less energy are all but guaranteed to have a positive result. The real question of interest is now: how much are people willing to not do?
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    Well I’ll take a stab at this one: Privileged folks like those on HN will not cut back much. Folks who are already being forced to cut back will continue to do so, and with massive amounts of suffering. Really a simple solution!
    - haswell 5y ago
      This is rather pessimistic, trivializes the argument and assumes that it’s directed only at individuals. Doing less doesn’t have to mean it’s only an individual’s responsibility. Applying this more broadly, doing less is a category of potential solutions to much bigger problems. Relying on individuals will never move the needle very far.
      - ethanbond 5y ago
        This is the opposite of assuming it’s directed only at individuals. I’m saying we are already doing this, systematically, at massive scale. What it looks like is people fleeing particular regions, turned from farmer or industrial worker to… “doing less.” It looks like mass migration and failed states. This happens either because the economics cease to make sense (the sort of levers any systematic solution would have available), or ecological facts require it (the sort of solution that will be forced upon us in lieu of action). In either case, it’s clear that the “doing less” approaches are bound to start with the people who are already doing the least.
kragen 5y ago
We can divide possible strategies into four groups: those that help the ecosystem and hurt humans in the short term (like your extreme example), those that hurt the ecosystem and hurt humans in the short term (like nuclear war or Agent Orange), those that help the ecosystem and help humans in the short term (like moving from fossil fuels to solar), and those that hurt the ecosystem and help humans in the short term (like expanding the use of fossil fuels). (And of course there are many things that are on the borderline.) You are setting up an opposition between strategy groups 1 and 4, but ignoring the existence of the other two groups. But group 3, the Bright Green group, is where all the action is!
majormajor 5y ago
Let's get even more pedantic! "Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't going anywhere. It will survive extinction events. "Preserve nonhuman species and the current state of the environment" is where your "get rid of all the humans and their activity" proposal would fit. But is that actually what anyone wants? The real goal for most people would be, I wager, much more like: "Preserve both human and non-human life, with 21st-century-wealthy-country-standards-of-living, and also preserve the current state of the environment." In short: you're making "save the planet" into a very particular strawman that misrepresents what people who say it mean.
- calibas 5y ago
  So when people say "save the planet" they also mean preserving a completely unsustainable standard of living? I disagree, but if I wanted a strawman to shoot down that's a good one. To be clear, I meant protecting the current ecosystems and I don't believe we need to regress or eliminate the human race to do that either.
  - jandrese 5y ago
    How about transforming an unsustainable standard of living into a sustainable one? "Kill all humans" is so defeatist. So is "kill most humans and go back to being hunter/gatherers". That's not even trying. That is flipping the board because you think you're losing.
    - calibas 5y ago
      To repeat what I said already, "Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate that less [human] activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet." That was why I brought it up, I wasn't suggesting that we actually kill everyone, that's unrealistic and absurd, nor did I say that we should go back to being hunter/gatherers. I suggested we do less, which means consuming less and is part of a sustainable standard of living, so I'm a little confused by your comment... I think I ruffled some feathers by pointing out that every human being dropping dead right now would be the best possible thing to happen for the health of the biosphere. It's an ugly truth, I was hoping it would motivate people to change.
gumby 5y ago
> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Actually the planet doesn’t give a shit either way. People have been busy changing it, and it has simply reacted. Now they are selfishly unhappy with it because it’s less congenial than it used to be for vertebrates, or specifically humans. They just want an earth that will support them in continuing to do the things they want.* Perhaps in 30 megayears the cockroach archeologists will marvel at all the weird endoskeletal animals in the fossil record and wonder if any of them were intelligent. * this is why I don’t like population-based arguments about the climate. If you believe the earth should be optimized for humans, how can you simultaneously say “but only for these ones?” Making people is an activity some people choose to do.
mdavis6890 5y ago
This is a bit like saying that the planet would be better off without humans. And maybe that's what you believe, I don't know. It might even be true! But I don't care: I'm a human and I love other humans and I want humans to prosper as much as possible. Which requires activity which contributes to our shared prosperity. Ideally that prosperity would also include a nice planet to live on though. Earth is a reasonable choice.
jeffreyrogers 5y ago
> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. The planet doesn't care what lives on it or if anything lives at all. There is no best for the planet outside of goals humans set for it. > It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the Planet out of balance The planet has never been in balance. And even if we stop anthropogenic climate change something else will throw the planet out of balance again too.
- calibas 5y ago
  FYI, when people are talking about helping "the Planet" they're not talking about lifeless rocks, they're talking about preserving the diversity of life on the Planet. And by balance I mean not precipitating another extinction event. Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but we probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have to...
  - lowbloodsugar 5y ago
    After the dinosaurs were wiped out, millions of new species evolved. So causing a climate disaster that wipes out humans scores higher on the "diversity of life" scale than keeping humans alive. Live evolves. The Planet, "Planet" here as Gaia, will survive our extinction.
    - Nevermark 5y ago
      Humans making it to other habitats beyond Earth will likely set off new explosions of diversity (in geological time) than another reset on Earth. In contrast, if Earth life doesn't achieve the ability to colonize other bodies, it is doomed to have diversity of zero once the Sun expands, if a global natural disaster doesn't kill all life before then.
    - ejb999 5y ago
      How do you propose to wipe out humans and leave the animals intact?
  - tshaddox 5y ago
dejj 5y ago
If by: > do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. you mean: let humans go extinct. Then yes, that would work. It has the elegance of Multivac’s answer to Asimov’s “The last question” “And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy. But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.”
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
abyssin 5y ago
The practical issue for me is: how to do less and still feel like I’m a member of a functional group of people? Doing less is easy. Being part of a group of people that do little is doable. But I’ve yet to find such a group that isn’t made of crazies or depressive people. Doing stuff and consuming resources and spending is a religion. We don’t have temples to make offerings. Our entire cultural environment is dedicated to the symbolic activity of producing and sacrificing. Taking part in it is a requirement to be recognized as a legitimate member of society. Problems that are seen as legit are all related to this religious endeavour.
sieabahlpark 5y ago
> Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate that less activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet. How do I get the food without a currency I earn at work? Will I be given perpetually free stuff from some benevolent government? I believe I've heard that pitch before and it hasn't ever worked and never will. This is a nonstarter and completely disregards just how the world actually works.
lowbloodsugar 5y ago
>Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. ... after "stop eating", stop breathing will soon follow. Why don't you go first? Why haven't you gone first already? Is it because humans just don't work like that? At all? I mean, thanks. Your argument demonstrates precisely why "make less CO2" will never work: You believe it, and yet even you are still breathing. (please don't stop breathing. i don't think your suggestion is serious, so neither is mine).
joshxyz 5y ago
Haha this is nice, really a question of how much we live in excess and if do we really have enough for everybody in a sustainable manner
taneq 5y ago
Are you trying to say that it’s NOT expensive or painful to just lay down and die en masse?
BurningFrog 5y ago
If your ideal world is for humanity to be exterminated, I'm afraid we are mortal enemies. If it's not, you need to express yourself clearer.
kansface 5y ago
There is a perverse, stable equilibrium. When traffic becomes better, its much more convenient to drive. When flights are cheaper because demand is lower, more people can and will travel. When the price of beef declines because some people stop consuming, others will buy more. I don't believe there is any way to fix our problems by doing less.

sushisource 5y ago

IMO this is technically true in a totally uninteresting way. People aren't going to stop doing stuff. That's just fairly obviously not really on the table, despite the minority of people who are into ideas of going back to some pre-modern agrarian societal model. So, how do we let people continue to do stuff without totally messing up the planet? That's the crucial question humanity is interested in solving (or, maybe more accurately, needs to solve).

LAC-Tech 5y ago
I mean we could do less. COVID showed that (a lot of us ) really don't need to be commuting and flying all that much. It's tragic that 'society' wasted a perfectly good pandemic by not learning any of the things it showed us.
- rkk3 5y ago
  If anything I was more surprised at the lack of impact. Emissions only fell by around 6.4% https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > COVID showed that (a lot of us ) really don't need to be commuting and flying all that much. It's tragic that 'society' wasted a perfectly good pandemic by not learning any of the things it showed us. I'm flying a lot more post Covid. It showed me how precious travel and meeting people face to face and experiencing new cultures is. Based on current air travel statistics, I'm not alone.
calibas 5y ago
This seems to be the standard response, I've certainly heard it before, but all I'm suggesting is doing less. I'm not a luddite, I'm not arguing for a "pre-modern agrarian societal model", I'm arguing for a post-modern agrarian society that balances technology, industry and the ecosystem. We consume enormously more than we need, and far more than the Planet can handle. I feel like the one of the few sane people when I'm saying it's imperative that we lower our consumption right now.
- slg 5y ago
  Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of the few sane people because you are of course technically right. However no one will listen to you because "even if that’s true, there’s no profit in thinking about it" as it is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There is no way to get a critical mass of people to return to an agrarian society until they have no other real choice because collectively modern consumption makes our individual lives more enjoyable. That is why reducing emissions is expensive and painful because the cheap and easy answer of just not consuming isn't feasible.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Some part of modern consumption however is not really making lives any more enjoyable at all, for instance all the low quality clothes and items sold in large quantities to fill some internal void for people for a short while. If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people would start buying more sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it more sensible for them individually.
    - slg 5y ago
      >to fill some internal void for people for a short while. You just answered your own point there. It makes people happy. Maybe that feeling is fleeting, but it is still a good feeling that people will not give up voluntarily unless there are no other options. >If there was for instance a carbon tax on the raw materials and transport then I’m fairly sure the price difference between high quality and low quality items would become minimal so people would start buying more sensibly for the planet because our systems would make it more sensible for them individually. I don't disagree, but a carbon tax is in the expensive and painful bucket above not the cheap and easy one. It makes the low quality goods more expensive so people consume less of them. That is not people voluntarily giving up those good for the benefit of the planet.
haswell 5y ago
I think it's interesting, and here's why. Think about this as it relates to other common problems humans face like debt or the need to lose weight. I can put all of my energy and focus into making more money so I can get my debt under control, but that won't matter if I have really bad spending habits. I can put all of my energy into exercising more and burning the calories I take in, but that won't matter if I'm eating more calories than I can reasonably burn in a day. I'd argue that doing less is still doing something. It's just looking for a solution in a different place. It's focusing on the cause, instead of trying to put a band-aid on the effect. This falls into the category of "low hanging fruit", and one of the easiest potential sources of meaningful change. Inventing new things, increasing energy efficiency, etc. are all possible optimizations, but are not guaranteed. Eating less, spending less, and burning less energy are all but guaranteed to have a positive result. The real question of interest is now: how much are people willing to not do?
- ethanbond 5y ago
  Well I’ll take a stab at this one: Privileged folks like those on HN will not cut back much. Folks who are already being forced to cut back will continue to do so, and with massive amounts of suffering. Really a simple solution!
  - haswell 5y ago
    This is rather pessimistic, trivializes the argument and assumes that it’s directed only at individuals. Doing less doesn’t have to mean it’s only an individual’s responsibility. Applying this more broadly, doing less is a category of potential solutions to much bigger problems. Relying on individuals will never move the needle very far.
    - ethanbond 5y ago
      This is the opposite of assuming it’s directed only at individuals. I’m saying we are already doing this, systematically, at massive scale. What it looks like is people fleeing particular regions, turned from farmer or industrial worker to… “doing less.” It looks like mass migration and failed states. This happens either because the economics cease to make sense (the sort of levers any systematic solution would have available), or ecological facts require it (the sort of solution that will be forced upon us in lieu of action). In either case, it’s clear that the “doing less” approaches are bound to start with the people who are already doing the least.

kragen 5y ago

We can divide possible strategies into four groups: those that help the ecosystem and hurt humans in the short term (like your extreme example), those that hurt the ecosystem and hurt humans in the short term (like nuclear war or Agent Orange), those that help the ecosystem and help humans in the short term (like moving from fossil fuels to solar), and those that hurt the ecosystem and help humans in the short term (like expanding the use of fossil fuels). (And of course there are many things that are on the borderline.) You are setting up an opposition between strategy groups 1 and 4, but ignoring the existence of the other two groups. But group 3, the Bright Green group, is where all the action is!

majormajor 5y ago

Let's get even more pedantic! "Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't going anywhere. It will survive extinction events. "Preserve nonhuman species and the current state of the environment" is where your "get rid of all the humans and their activity" proposal would fit. But is that actually what anyone wants? The real goal for most people would be, I wager, much more like: "Preserve both human and non-human life, with 21st-century-wealthy-country-standards-of-living, and also preserve the current state of the environment." In short: you're making "save the planet" into a very particular strawman that misrepresents what people who say it mean.

calibas 5y ago
So when people say "save the planet" they also mean preserving a completely unsustainable standard of living? I disagree, but if I wanted a strawman to shoot down that's a good one. To be clear, I meant protecting the current ecosystems and I don't believe we need to regress or eliminate the human race to do that either.
- jandrese 5y ago
  How about transforming an unsustainable standard of living into a sustainable one? "Kill all humans" is so defeatist. So is "kill most humans and go back to being hunter/gatherers". That's not even trying. That is flipping the board because you think you're losing.
  - calibas 5y ago
    To repeat what I said already, "Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate that less [human] activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet." That was why I brought it up, I wasn't suggesting that we actually kill everyone, that's unrealistic and absurd, nor did I say that we should go back to being hunter/gatherers. I suggested we do less, which means consuming less and is part of a sustainable standard of living, so I'm a little confused by your comment... I think I ruffled some feathers by pointing out that every human being dropping dead right now would be the best possible thing to happen for the health of the biosphere. It's an ugly truth, I was hoping it would motivate people to change.

gumby 5y ago

> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. Actually the planet doesn’t give a shit either way. People have been busy changing it, and it has simply reacted. Now they are selfishly unhappy with it because it’s less congenial than it used to be for vertebrates, or specifically humans. They just want an earth that will support them in continuing to do the things they want.* Perhaps in 30 megayears the cockroach archeologists will marvel at all the weird endoskeletal animals in the fossil record and wonder if any of them were intelligent. * this is why I don’t like population-based arguments about the climate. If you believe the earth should be optimized for humans, how can you simultaneously say “but only for these ones?” Making people is an activity some people choose to do.

mdavis6890 5y ago

This is a bit like saying that the planet would be better off without humans. And maybe that's what you believe, I don't know. It might even be true! But I don't care: I'm a human and I love other humans and I want humans to prosper as much as possible. Which requires activity which contributes to our shared prosperity. Ideally that prosperity would also include a nice planet to live on though. Earth is a reasonable choice.

jeffreyrogers 5y ago

> The absolute best thing for the Planet would be for every human being to do nothing at all. The planet doesn't care what lives on it or if anything lives at all. There is no best for the planet outside of goals humans set for it. > It's so odd that all our frantic doing is what's thrown the Planet out of balance The planet has never been in balance. And even if we stop anthropogenic climate change something else will throw the planet out of balance again too.

calibas 5y ago
FYI, when people are talking about helping "the Planet" they're not talking about lifeless rocks, they're talking about preserving the diversity of life on the Planet. And by balance I mean not precipitating another extinction event. Sure, they're going to happen anyway eventually, but we probably shouldn't cause an extra one if we don't have to...
- lowbloodsugar 5y ago
  After the dinosaurs were wiped out, millions of new species evolved. So causing a climate disaster that wipes out humans scores higher on the "diversity of life" scale than keeping humans alive. Live evolves. The Planet, "Planet" here as Gaia, will survive our extinction.
  - Nevermark 5y ago
    Humans making it to other habitats beyond Earth will likely set off new explosions of diversity (in geological time) than another reset on Earth. In contrast, if Earth life doesn't achieve the ability to colonize other bodies, it is doomed to have diversity of zero once the Sun expands, if a global natural disaster doesn't kill all life before then.
  - ejb999 5y ago
    How do you propose to wipe out humans and leave the animals intact?
- tshaddox 5y ago

dejj 5y ago

If by: > do nothing at all. Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. you mean: let humans go extinct. Then yes, that would work. It has the elegance of Multivac’s answer to Asimov’s “The last question” “And it came to pass that AC learned how to reverse the direction of entropy. But there was now no man to whom AC might give the answer of the last question. No matter. The answer -- by demonstration -- would take care of that, too.”

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

abyssin 5y ago

The practical issue for me is: how to do less and still feel like I’m a member of a functional group of people? Doing less is easy. Being part of a group of people that do little is doable. But I’ve yet to find such a group that isn’t made of crazies or depressive people. Doing stuff and consuming resources and spending is a religion. We don’t have temples to make offerings. Our entire cultural environment is dedicated to the symbolic activity of producing and sacrificing. Taking part in it is a requirement to be recognized as a legitimate member of society. Problems that are seen as legit are all related to this religious endeavour.

sieabahlpark 5y ago

> Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate that less activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet. How do I get the food without a currency I earn at work? Will I be given perpetually free stuff from some benevolent government? I believe I've heard that pitch before and it hasn't ever worked and never will. This is a nonstarter and completely disregards just how the world actually works.

lowbloodsugar 5y ago

>Stop driving, stop working, stop eating entirely, and then things will quickly recover. ... after "stop eating", stop breathing will soon follow. Why don't you go first? Why haven't you gone first already? Is it because humans just don't work like that? At all? I mean, thanks. Your argument demonstrates precisely why "make less CO2" will never work: You believe it, and yet even you are still breathing. (please don't stop breathing. i don't think your suggestion is serious, so neither is mine).

joshxyz 5y ago

Haha this is nice, really a question of how much we live in excess and if do we really have enough for everybody in a sustainable manner

taneq 5y ago

Are you trying to say that it’s NOT expensive or painful to just lay down and die en masse?

BurningFrog 5y ago

If your ideal world is for humanity to be exterminated, I'm afraid we are mortal enemies. If it's not, you need to express yourself clearer.

kansface 5y ago

There is a perverse, stable equilibrium. When traffic becomes better, its much more convenient to drive. When flights are cheaper because demand is lower, more people can and will travel. When the price of beef declines because some people stop consuming, others will buy more. I don't believe there is any way to fix our problems by doing less.