6 ms·

> It doesn't seem reasonable to say we have hundreds of years to figure out a solution. We've also known about the global warming problem in great detail for

> It doesn't seem reasonable to say we have hundreds of years to figure out a solution. We've also known about the global warming problem in great detail for well over 50 years at this point. Since then we haven't figured it out but made it worse -- most of our cumulative emissions have happened in just the last 50 years. Why do people still think we can figure this out in a matter of decades without having to drastically change our fossil fuel habits?

taylodl 4y ago
Kick the can down the road. Nothing to see here. Let our progeny figure out how to clean up the mess we created. We're doing the same thing with our debt, too. I'm just going to put it out there - our progeny is going to hate our guts. Then again, maybe afterward humanity will hold us up as an example for what not to do, how not to solve global problems. They'll be able to use history to quickly and effectively shut down the naysayers. Of course that's assuming they bother to learn anything from history...I mean we sure as hell haven't!
- lizard 4y ago
  As a fairly new parent, I'm not thrilled about the world my daughter will inherit. I struggle with a lot of questions like whether I should raise her to be a "good" person or a "successful" person. But, I've heard that studies show that younger generations are more concerned about the environment. Both in that they are showing an interest in the subject at younger ages and they are more likely than older generations to acknowledge it as an issue that affects them. This suggests that our children may not only be better equipped to handle these issues than we are (assuming we continue to advance science and technology without major catastrophe in the meanwhile), but will be more interested in pursuing these problems both personally and professionally and, in the worst case, more willing to make the necessary sacrifices to see actual change. While I certainly hope we can do more and that I can have some confidence my children will actually be better off than myself, changing the way the world thinks is a very slow and difficult thing to do. It may be the case the best we can accomplish is to hold it together the best we can while teaching our children to care about the world around them, and, when the time comes, step aside to let them solve these problems.
  - taylodl 4y ago
    I'm concerned that the "concern for the environment" is mostly green washing. It's cool to be "concerned about the environment." It's far less cool to do anything about it that's consequential.
    - lizard 4y ago
      Sure, but that's kinda the point. Changing society's beliefs and especially behaviors can take generations. Today's adults are talking about it, but not doing enough about it. But for many of them it only became a problem after decades of not really hearing or caring about it. They have decades of experience not worrying about it and not seeing any consequences of it. Today's kids have been hearing about it for most or all their lives. They'll grow up seeing more evidence of what's happening and how it will impact them. They won't know a world that's not talking about it. Is that a guarantee they'll do something about it? Of course not.
crispinb 4y ago
> Why do people still think ... Because people haven't come to terms with the fact that humans are not Children of God nor disembodied Cartesian rational calculators, but actually a loquacious and smartish hominid, designed by selection for small group interaction. There is nothing to suggest this species is capable of planet-level cooperation towards a communally-decided end. Add to that the fact that path-dependent history has placed that species today in a situation where it's organised into huge 17thC mutually-hostile groups ("States"), incapable of anything more than opportunistic cooperation because of their religious and anachronistic founding concept ("sovereignty"). Most people have no idea that this contingent organisation is not the natural and inevitable state of the world, so aren't open to the possibility that it dooms them to sclerotic inability to face today's challenges.
- tejohnso 4y ago
  > There is nothing to suggest this species is capable of planet-level cooperation towards a communally-decided end. Absolutely. In fact there is plenty to suggest to me that this species is completely incapable of that level of cooperation.
- FredPret 4y ago
  You make interesting points but I would disagree about global cooperation. Every day we cooperate in an intricate dance with people all over the world, from different ideologies and legal systems, to operate our supply chains and information networks. All we need is for the green option to be in everyone’s self-interest and the system will rapidly self-optimize. We’re already getting there with green laws being globally popular, carbon taxes, and clean tech getting cheaper.
  - crispinb 4y ago
    Well it's too big a discussion to litigate here, but I don't agree that market forces + self interest have in fact been successful. Most significant problems have merely been postponed, precisely because we just don't have the cooperative mechanisms available to deal with them. Many of our ecosystems (ie. the actual physical world, rather than the virtual worlds of finance and markets) are on their last legs. I also think the very concept of 'self-interest' is incoherent (as is 'national interest'), but again that's too large a topic for an HN comment.

taylodl 4y ago

Kick the can down the road. Nothing to see here. Let our progeny figure out how to clean up the mess we created. We're doing the same thing with our debt, too. I'm just going to put it out there - our progeny is going to hate our guts. Then again, maybe afterward humanity will hold us up as an example for what not to do, how not to solve global problems. They'll be able to use history to quickly and effectively shut down the naysayers. Of course that's assuming they bother to learn anything from history...I mean we sure as hell haven't!

lizard 4y ago
As a fairly new parent, I'm not thrilled about the world my daughter will inherit. I struggle with a lot of questions like whether I should raise her to be a "good" person or a "successful" person. But, I've heard that studies show that younger generations are more concerned about the environment. Both in that they are showing an interest in the subject at younger ages and they are more likely than older generations to acknowledge it as an issue that affects them. This suggests that our children may not only be better equipped to handle these issues than we are (assuming we continue to advance science and technology without major catastrophe in the meanwhile), but will be more interested in pursuing these problems both personally and professionally and, in the worst case, more willing to make the necessary sacrifices to see actual change. While I certainly hope we can do more and that I can have some confidence my children will actually be better off than myself, changing the way the world thinks is a very slow and difficult thing to do. It may be the case the best we can accomplish is to hold it together the best we can while teaching our children to care about the world around them, and, when the time comes, step aside to let them solve these problems.
- taylodl 4y ago
  I'm concerned that the "concern for the environment" is mostly green washing. It's cool to be "concerned about the environment." It's far less cool to do anything about it that's consequential.
  - lizard 4y ago
    Sure, but that's kinda the point. Changing society's beliefs and especially behaviors can take generations. Today's adults are talking about it, but not doing enough about it. But for many of them it only became a problem after decades of not really hearing or caring about it. They have decades of experience not worrying about it and not seeing any consequences of it. Today's kids have been hearing about it for most or all their lives. They'll grow up seeing more evidence of what's happening and how it will impact them. They won't know a world that's not talking about it. Is that a guarantee they'll do something about it? Of course not.

crispinb 4y ago

> Why do people still think ... Because people haven't come to terms with the fact that humans are not Children of God nor disembodied Cartesian rational calculators, but actually a loquacious and smartish hominid, designed by selection for small group interaction. There is nothing to suggest this species is capable of planet-level cooperation towards a communally-decided end. Add to that the fact that path-dependent history has placed that species today in a situation where it's organised into huge 17thC mutually-hostile groups ("States"), incapable of anything more than opportunistic cooperation because of their religious and anachronistic founding concept ("sovereignty"). Most people have no idea that this contingent organisation is not the natural and inevitable state of the world, so aren't open to the possibility that it dooms them to sclerotic inability to face today's challenges.

tejohnso 4y ago
> There is nothing to suggest this species is capable of planet-level cooperation towards a communally-decided end. Absolutely. In fact there is plenty to suggest to me that this species is completely incapable of that level of cooperation.
FredPret 4y ago
You make interesting points but I would disagree about global cooperation. Every day we cooperate in an intricate dance with people all over the world, from different ideologies and legal systems, to operate our supply chains and information networks. All we need is for the green option to be in everyone’s self-interest and the system will rapidly self-optimize. We’re already getting there with green laws being globally popular, carbon taxes, and clean tech getting cheaper.
- crispinb 4y ago
  Well it's too big a discussion to litigate here, but I don't agree that market forces + self interest have in fact been successful. Most significant problems have merely been postponed, precisely because we just don't have the cooperative mechanisms available to deal with them. Many of our ecosystems (ie. the actual physical world, rather than the virtual worlds of finance and markets) are on their last legs. I also think the very concept of 'self-interest' is incoherent (as is 'national interest'), but again that's too large a topic for an HN comment.