4 ms·

Energy Is a Form Giver

32 points by dnetesn 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
photochemsyn 4y ago
The trigger has been pulled on fossil-fueled global warming, and the planet will continue its steady avg temperature rise for the next 100 years at least, at rates equal to or exceeding those seen over the 1980-2020 period. It will take at least 100 years after the end of fossil fuel use to equilibrate to a new stable temperature, and various feedback processes (permafrost melt, polar oceanic warming) will continue to leak carbon to the atmosphere regardless, perhaps for centuries. > "The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.08°C per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (0.18°C per decade) since 1981. The 2020 Northern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the highest in the 141-year record at +1.28°C above average." (NOAA) Practically, this means that at least as much effort needs to be spent on adaptation to new conditions as needs to be spent on replacing fossil fuels with renewables. These conditions include increased floods and droughts and heat waves (due to increase in atmospheric water vapor and its various chaotic effects) relative to human civilization history, and inexorable sea level rise on the longer term. The 'positive messaging' advocates who say that stating this is discouraging and causes people to lose hope are simply wrong. It's better to think of it as a challenging reality. Adaptation is possible to some extent (termite architecture for example), and of course the sooner fossil fuels are eliminated from the energy mix the slower the changes will be. Also, don't buy property in flood plains or right on the coastline, or on debris flow zones, or in wildfire-prone areas, and don't complain about recycling urine for drinking water either. As we have sowed, so shall we reap.
strogonoff 4y ago
The advances of technology allow us to live comfortably in tall buildings with little overall footprint, so that vast areas could be dedicated to greenery and rescinded to nature—which would in theory benefit the climate globally, while also being easily accessible in person (as in a decently planned dense city public transport can be mind-bogglingly fast and efficient). Yet for some reason many people seem to have a visceral rejection of a future like that. What is it motivated by? How could it be possible to make the idea of high-density living more accepted by the public?
- isityouyesitsme 4y ago
  To live in a city of any size, let alone a dense one, you need to be highly tolerant of things that irritate you or violate things you consider valuable, and in many cases, you must be tolerant of things that violate basic mores. The second it becomes a possibility, a significant percentage of people will flee the things that they have difficulty tolerating, simply because they no longer need to tolerate it.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    Or they could value and be bothered by different things than you.
  - strogonoff 4y ago
    > you need to be highly tolerant of things that irritate you or violate things you consider valuable, and in many cases, you must be tolerant of things that violate basic mores This is people everywhere, dense or sparse—the difference is that in a denser city you have the ability to choose to engage with people who satisfy your standards, unlike a small town or suburbia where it is more about whom you happened to have living nearby (count them on your fingers) and whom you have to acknowledge whether you like them and agree with their mores or not. I find this much more of an issue psychologically in smaller towns and countryside, where each individual ends up knowing much more about each other because there’s just no way around it (and whom sparseness and subsequent lack of things to do pushes to alcoholism, drugs and other vices). In a denser area I physically couldn’t care what each of the hundreds of strangers I come across every day does in their spare time, people tend to follow a certain protocol in public interactions, law enforcement is more efficient due to constrained area, and it generally feels safer and more respectful of my attention and privacy as a result. Problems like degraded mental health (and resulting substance abuse, high crime rate, etc.) can probably be exacerbated and contagious in denser areas but I think they are more prevalent in sparser ones.
- roarcher 4y ago
  > Yet for some reason many people seem to have a visceral rejection of a future like that. What is it motivated by? I know this is unpopular with the young childfree techie demographic of HN, but to many people, what you're proposing sounds like a human termite colony. The downtown high-rise lifestyle is great for careerists and twentysomethings whose life consists of work, happy hour, and dog parks, but most people want a little space and peace and quiet as they get older, especially if they want to raise a family. The desire to be left alone is strong. An existence of listening to your neighbors pound on your walls and ceiling and being beholden to a condo association full of petty tyrants just doesn't appeal to a large group of people. I lived in urban apartments for most of my adult life. Since moving to a semi-rural house a few years ago, my mental health is vastly improved.

32 points by dnetesn 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

The trigger has been pulled on fossil-fueled global warming, and the planet will continue its steady avg temperature rise for the next 100 years at least, at rates equal to or exceeding those seen over the 1980-2020 period. It will take at least 100 years after the end of fossil fuel use to equilibrate to a new stable temperature, and various feedback processes (permafrost melt, polar oceanic warming) will continue to leak carbon to the atmosphere regardless, perhaps for centuries. > "The global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.08°C per decade since 1880 and over twice that rate (0.18°C per decade) since 1981. The 2020 Northern Hemisphere land and ocean surface temperature was the highest in the 141-year record at +1.28°C above average." (NOAA) Practically, this means that at least as much effort needs to be spent on adaptation to new conditions as needs to be spent on replacing fossil fuels with renewables. These conditions include increased floods and droughts and heat waves (due to increase in atmospheric water vapor and its various chaotic effects) relative to human civilization history, and inexorable sea level rise on the longer term. The 'positive messaging' advocates who say that stating this is discouraging and causes people to lose hope are simply wrong. It's better to think of it as a challenging reality. Adaptation is possible to some extent (termite architecture for example), and of course the sooner fossil fuels are eliminated from the energy mix the slower the changes will be. Also, don't buy property in flood plains or right on the coastline, or on debris flow zones, or in wildfire-prone areas, and don't complain about recycling urine for drinking water either. As we have sowed, so shall we reap.

strogonoff 4y ago

The advances of technology allow us to live comfortably in tall buildings with little overall footprint, so that vast areas could be dedicated to greenery and rescinded to nature—which would in theory benefit the climate globally, while also being easily accessible in person (as in a decently planned dense city public transport can be mind-bogglingly fast and efficient). Yet for some reason many people seem to have a visceral rejection of a future like that. What is it motivated by? How could it be possible to make the idea of high-density living more accepted by the public?

isityouyesitsme 4y ago
To live in a city of any size, let alone a dense one, you need to be highly tolerant of things that irritate you or violate things you consider valuable, and in many cases, you must be tolerant of things that violate basic mores. The second it becomes a possibility, a significant percentage of people will flee the things that they have difficulty tolerating, simply because they no longer need to tolerate it.
- thfuran 4y ago
  Or they could value and be bothered by different things than you.
- strogonoff 4y ago
  > you need to be highly tolerant of things that irritate you or violate things you consider valuable, and in many cases, you must be tolerant of things that violate basic mores This is people everywhere, dense or sparse—the difference is that in a denser city you have the ability to choose to engage with people who satisfy your standards, unlike a small town or suburbia where it is more about whom you happened to have living nearby (count them on your fingers) and whom you have to acknowledge whether you like them and agree with their mores or not. I find this much more of an issue psychologically in smaller towns and countryside, where each individual ends up knowing much more about each other because there’s just no way around it (and whom sparseness and subsequent lack of things to do pushes to alcoholism, drugs and other vices). In a denser area I physically couldn’t care what each of the hundreds of strangers I come across every day does in their spare time, people tend to follow a certain protocol in public interactions, law enforcement is more efficient due to constrained area, and it generally feels safer and more respectful of my attention and privacy as a result. Problems like degraded mental health (and resulting substance abuse, high crime rate, etc.) can probably be exacerbated and contagious in denser areas but I think they are more prevalent in sparser ones.
roarcher 4y ago
> Yet for some reason many people seem to have a visceral rejection of a future like that. What is it motivated by? I know this is unpopular with the young childfree techie demographic of HN, but to many people, what you're proposing sounds like a human termite colony. The downtown high-rise lifestyle is great for careerists and twentysomethings whose life consists of work, happy hour, and dog parks, but most people want a little space and peace and quiet as they get older, especially if they want to raise a family. The desire to be left alone is strong. An existence of listening to your neighbors pound on your walls and ceiling and being beholden to a condo association full of petty tyrants just doesn't appeal to a large group of people. I lived in urban apartments for most of my adult life. Since moving to a semi-rural house a few years ago, my mental health is vastly improved.