3 ms·

How many times in that past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through a global agreement to make everyone worse off? We can't pass a carbon tax in

How many times in that past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through a global agreement to make everyone worse off? We can't pass a carbon tax in the US, imagining China or India doing that with much lower standards of livings is insane. How many times in the past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through technology? We already have the technology, we can just build a bunch of nuclear reactors. Just as management can underestimate how hard solving technology problems, technologists can wildly underestimate how hard it is to solve people problems. Climate change is hard people problem. The effects are diffuse and far in the future. People are terrible about planning 30-40 years in the future and terrible about making sacrifices to help people they don't know in small ways that are statistical and abstract.

acdha 5y ago
> How many times in that past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through a global agreement to make everyone worse off? People said the same thing: we couldn't afford clean water, emissions controls or fuel economy systems for cars, ending use of DDT (and that even years after its effectiveness had fallen off of a cliff due to selected immunity), power-efficient appliances, replacing incandescent lightbulbs with those using massively less power, etc. Each and every time they've been completely wrong, and this will be even more powerfully so because one very consistent finding has been that the costs of not dealing with climate change are MUCH greater than the mitigation measures, especially because they happen at uncontrollable intervals whereas you can make plans around something like the need to buy an EV instead of an ICE car.
- twblalock 5y ago
  > People said the same thing: we couldn't afford clean water, emissions controls or fuel economy systems for cars, ending use of DDT (and that even years after its effectiveness had fallen off of a cliff due to selected immunity), power-efficient appliances, replacing incandescent lightbulbs with those using massively less power, etc. Almost all of the things in that list were solved by technological solutions which replaced things people had with better things and made people better off, not by people sacrificing their quality of life.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Anyone who grew up in the 80s heard a TON of whining about how seatbelts & DUI laws were destroying freedom and having to a less-polluting car burning unleaded fuel was expensive and no fun. Phasing out CFCs, dealing with acid rain, EnergyStar appliances, etc. were all decried as devastating the economy but that didn't happen and very few people want to go back. If you weren't around back then, all of this was portrayed by some people as a massive quality of life sacrifice and most of them were not industry shills. My main point was that very little of this happened in a vacuum: government policy pushed R&D on most of those technologies, pushed people to adopt them, used taxes to compensate for externalities, etc.
- philipkglass 5y ago
  I'm not sure if you are agreeing with the point you are responding to or contesting it. These positive developments have a large technological component to them. Adopting new and improved technologies didn't make people worse off. People got the same amount of light from LED bulbs while reducing the consumption of electricity by 75%. A purely behavioral approach to the lighting problem would mean something more like "everyone still uses incandescent bulbs, but for 75% fewer hours per year." That actually makes people worse off and has much worse prospects for widespread adoption.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Both: most of these technologies had substantial R&D investments by the government and significant encouragement for adoptions. A lot of people think things like CFCs or acid rain were overblown because the major governments of the world acted promptly, and I think that's a message we'll need a lot this century.
wbsss4412 5y ago
1000 years ago we didn’t have global communications… I don’t see how this is a reasonable timescale for comparison.
blurker 5y ago
> People are terrible about planning 30-40 years in the future and terrible about making sacrifices to help people they don't know in small ways that are statistical and abstract. Exactly my concern. The pandering appeals to us not wanting to change. > How many times in that past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through a global agreement to make everyone worse off? That's not what I am suggesting. I'm suggesting we cut the excesses, which there are plenty of. Maybe it's not enough and so we should explore all avenues, for sure. I often think of the "giant meatball" graphic that visualised all humans on the planet as a giant schmooshed ball sitting in Central Park, New York. To me this is a very powerful visualisation akin to the "pale blue dot" that shows just how few humans are on the planet despite how drastically we are altering it. I think there are a lot of excesses that we can easily cut. And we should, until we come up with something better that provably will work. I would like to see our species get off this planet and I hope that we can survive far into the future. I see the first step towards that being us learning how to sustainably live on the planet we have now. It's probably better to scale back our consumption now such that we can have a long time to develop whatever technologies we need instead of going full steam ahead with unsustainable consumption, banking on technological progress bailing us out in some way that we can't possibly count on in a short amount of time.

acdha 5y ago

> How many times in that past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through a global agreement to make everyone worse off? People said the same thing: we couldn't afford clean water, emissions controls or fuel economy systems for cars, ending use of DDT (and that even years after its effectiveness had fallen off of a cliff due to selected immunity), power-efficient appliances, replacing incandescent lightbulbs with those using massively less power, etc. Each and every time they've been completely wrong, and this will be even more powerfully so because one very consistent finding has been that the costs of not dealing with climate change are MUCH greater than the mitigation measures, especially because they happen at uncontrollable intervals whereas you can make plans around something like the need to buy an EV instead of an ICE car.

twblalock 5y ago
> People said the same thing: we couldn't afford clean water, emissions controls or fuel economy systems for cars, ending use of DDT (and that even years after its effectiveness had fallen off of a cliff due to selected immunity), power-efficient appliances, replacing incandescent lightbulbs with those using massively less power, etc. Almost all of the things in that list were solved by technological solutions which replaced things people had with better things and made people better off, not by people sacrificing their quality of life.
- acdha 5y ago
  Anyone who grew up in the 80s heard a TON of whining about how seatbelts & DUI laws were destroying freedom and having to a less-polluting car burning unleaded fuel was expensive and no fun. Phasing out CFCs, dealing with acid rain, EnergyStar appliances, etc. were all decried as devastating the economy but that didn't happen and very few people want to go back. If you weren't around back then, all of this was portrayed by some people as a massive quality of life sacrifice and most of them were not industry shills. My main point was that very little of this happened in a vacuum: government policy pushed R&D on most of those technologies, pushed people to adopt them, used taxes to compensate for externalities, etc.
philipkglass 5y ago
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with the point you are responding to or contesting it. These positive developments have a large technological component to them. Adopting new and improved technologies didn't make people worse off. People got the same amount of light from LED bulbs while reducing the consumption of electricity by 75%. A purely behavioral approach to the lighting problem would mean something more like "everyone still uses incandescent bulbs, but for 75% fewer hours per year." That actually makes people worse off and has much worse prospects for widespread adoption.
- acdha 5y ago
  Both: most of these technologies had substantial R&D investments by the government and significant encouragement for adoptions. A lot of people think things like CFCs or acid rain were overblown because the major governments of the world acted promptly, and I think that's a message we'll need a lot this century.

wbsss4412 5y ago

1000 years ago we didn’t have global communications… I don’t see how this is a reasonable timescale for comparison.

blurker 5y ago

> People are terrible about planning 30-40 years in the future and terrible about making sacrifices to help people they don't know in small ways that are statistical and abstract. Exactly my concern. The pandering appeals to us not wanting to change. > How many times in that past 1000 years have we solved large hard problems through a global agreement to make everyone worse off? That's not what I am suggesting. I'm suggesting we cut the excesses, which there are plenty of. Maybe it's not enough and so we should explore all avenues, for sure. I often think of the "giant meatball" graphic that visualised all humans on the planet as a giant schmooshed ball sitting in Central Park, New York. To me this is a very powerful visualisation akin to the "pale blue dot" that shows just how few humans are on the planet despite how drastically we are altering it. I think there are a lot of excesses that we can easily cut. And we should, until we come up with something better that provably will work. I would like to see our species get off this planet and I hope that we can survive far into the future. I see the first step towards that being us learning how to sustainably live on the planet we have now. It's probably better to scale back our consumption now such that we can have a long time to develop whatever technologies we need instead of going full steam ahead with unsustainable consumption, banking on technological progress bailing us out in some way that we can't possibly count on in a short amount of time.