6 ms·

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, des

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.

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.