5 ms·
"People underestimate what you can do with engineering." That seems optimistic. If that's the case, why is it that we still regularly have engineering debacles
by gjsman-1000 4y ago
"People underestimate what you can do with engineering."
That seems optimistic. If that's the case, why is it that we still regularly have engineering debacles and failures? Whether it be software, or rockets, or dams, it's not a magic "we can solve anything with engineering and enough money." Engineering is amazing, but it's not magic and engineering mistakes and oversights are a regular occurrence in every field.
And this:
"To pay for this, the people who sell you the gasoline will have to be billed an extra 53 cents. And of course, it’ll appear at the pump. That would amount to around $2 trillion, which sounds like an awful lot of money. But the GNP of the world is about $100 trillion. So it will set the world economy back by 2 percent."
This is elitism on an absurd level. Does he have any idea, how much just "reducing the world economy by 2 percent" would actually do? He's casually talking about the livelihoods of millions as though they are expendable. And 53 cents? I mean, in Silicon Valley it sounds great. But considering the median US income is only $31,000 (not joking); that's a cruel tax. Also, that would be worldwide, and I think it goes without saying that 53 cents a gallon in China or India added to the pump is a non-starter.
- DeRock 4y agoThe alternative is an unknown tail risk of unmitigated climate change. The decision isn't "98 or 100% GDP", its take a hit now, or increase risk of ecosystem collapse in the future.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago> unmitigated climate change So we'll do this to counter an unknown tail risk. I would argue, in my mind, that technology and AI is moving way too fast, and the current solutions to the climate issue are not feasible politically. People don't care. A more optimistic approach would be to wait and see what technology can bring us in the next 20 years or so to solve the problem instead of trying to rush today's inadequate solutions to market. Imagine if we had begun trying to solve the climate crisis in a radical manner 20 years ago, back when we had Windows XP, ludicrously expensive and shorter lasting solar panels, no practical large lithium-ion batteries, etc. It would be impossible. I think it's about as equally impossible today for what we'll have in the future.
- wpietri 4y agoWhy do you think solar panels and batteries and computers improved so much over the last 20 years? I'm pretty sure it wasn't because people said, "This stuff isn't very good, so let's not buy any of it and just wait for 20 years to see if it gets better."
- explorer83 4y agoI call this "hope" and I consider myself "hopeful".
- jjoonathan 4y agoThe problem with chasing tail risks is that there are an awful lot of them and our track record at picking the important ones is rather poor.
- olddustytrail 4y agoMedian US income for full time workers is actually $56,287.
- dragonwriter 4y agoYes, but not everyone is a full-time worker, so that’s not a correction to a claim about the median income of all Americans.
- olddustytrail 4y agoNo, it's not a correction. It's additional information that makes it clearer what a full time worker is likely to be on.
- nanidin 4y agoThe price of gas has been higher than the price of gas today + 53 cents, so from an absolute price perspective it doesn’t seem unreasonable.