5 ms·

Wealth, at least the way we measure it, is inextricably tied to modernity. The system you say is a "good thing" is literally speedrunning the destruction of our

Wealth, at least the way we measure it, is inextricably tied to modernity. The system you say is a "good thing" is literally speedrunning the destruction of our biosphere. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a system more effective at destroying our world. What many see as prosperity, is irreconcilable with sustainability. I find that's an uncomfortable thought.

guhidalg 3y ago
I agree with you, but I think what most people fail at is applying higher-order logic. Yes it is nice that private citizens have Jeff Bezos levels of wealth instead of monarchies or plutocrats, but at what cost? Most people are just unwilling to keep thinking about opportunity costs beyond the obvious.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  What cost is allowing Bezos to exist?
  - guhidalg 3y ago
    Search for “pee in bottles” in this thread.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      People have always peed in bottles when they're on a long drive, piloting an airplane long distance, on a sailboat, and so on. Some peoples' bladders have a short fuse, and carry a bottle. Do you think Lindberg brought a port-a-potty along with his Spirit of St Louis? I remember the opening sequence in a Jeff Bridges movie where he pulls over in his car and dumps his pee bottle. P.S. My dad was a B-17 navigator in WW2. I asked him what did they do when had to go. He said an empty ammo box was used. What was done with the full box? "Extra bombs over Germany!"
      - yoyohello13 3y ago
        Oh good! We should all aspire to have our work conditions resemble WWII B-17 crews.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        I figgered someone would fixate on that. Well done!
        vacuity 3y ago
        You did just imply that peeing in bottles is fairly reasonable for certain hectic environments. Perhaps so, but you'd need another explanation for why it's reasonable for a workplace like Amazon's warehouses to embody that. I think there should at least be heavy scrutiny towards that premise.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        It's not the horrible thing it's made out to be. Some people may even find it preferable to unsanitary, unsafe restrooms. Heck, during the recent pandemic, all the public restrooms were locked closed. What do you think people do when they go hiking?
        vacuity 3y ago
        So Amazon can't afford to provide sanitary, safe restrooms and not overwork its employees? I don't think people go hiking because they're running from a bear or wildfire; they do it because they feel like it, and so they plan accordingly.
      - guhidalg 3y ago
        Just read the story https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/delivery-drivers-sue-amazon-for-being-forced-to-pee-in-bottles/?sh=8bbc6f4333a0 https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/de... I'd rather live in a world where Amazon employees have time to pee on the job and Jeff Bezos has $10M less. Iterate until Jeff Bezos only makes ~10^2 what the median Amazon employee makes instead of ~10^6.
pdonis 3y ago
> Wealth, at least the way we measure it, is inextricably tied to modernity. Only in the sense that modernity produces a lot more wealth than any other system humans have come up with. > What many see as prosperity, is irreconcilable with sustainability. No, it isn't. What might be is allowing people to accumulate wealth by playing zero sum games, siphoning wealth out of other people's pockets into their own, instead of producing more wealth.
- Voultapher 3y ago
  > Only in the sense that modernity produces a lot more wealth than any other system humans have come up with. Wealth, as measured in GDP. A metric that has proven itself a poor predictor for happiness and fulfilling lives, and we do all this at the cost to our environment https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/. > No, it isn't. Our economies, political systems and culture are all built on the concept of infinite growth. Argue as much as you want, physics makes that impossible in a universe with limited resources.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Our economies, political systems and culture are all built on the concept of infinite growth Not really, everything could work exactly the same as now even when growth stops. The current system did bet on growth continuing for 40 more years, but there is no infinite there, other than those bets failing there is nothing in current society that demands infinite growth.
RandomLensman 3y ago
There was massive personal wealth already in antiquity and also destruction of ecosystems. Not sure that is specific to modernity.
WalterBright 3y ago
Communist societies tend to be a lot more destructive of their environments. The reason is straightforward - people take care of things that they own, they don't take care of things they don't. For example, which is threatened with extinction - ocean fish, or cows? Are you more careful with your boss's money, or your money? And so on.
- poncho_romero 3y ago
  Who said anything about communism? This is a false dichotomy.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The parent did: "you'd be hard pressed to find a system more effective at destroying our world"
    - poncho_romero 3y ago
      Fair enough. Still, I would disagree. Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Capitalism has endured great challenges for much longer, and despite increasing discontent with the system in many areas of the world, doesn’t appear likely to go anywhere. If that’s the case, the prodigious output of environmental harm capitalism generates won’t go anywhere either. Green energy and green technology won’t stop all instances of microplastics polluting our rivers or junk toys collecting in landfills.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited I recall reading after the USSR collapsed that Poland was the most polluted country in the world. All due to the rush to industrialize and to heck with the environment. Chernobyl is another case about communism giving short shrift to environmental considerations.
jimbokun 3y ago
It's not a difficult problem to reconcile capitalism and sustainability from a technical perspective. Just a question of political will. Carbon taxes. Water prices reflecting scarcity. Compensating people living in rain forests to not cut down their trees. Capitalism is still the best tool we have for setting prices and incentivizing efficiency. Just needs to be guided to place appropriate prices on externalities.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Water prices reflecting scarcity are not a solution for water scarcity. The problem is not enough water. You can't make water by taxing it. All you're doing is making it less accessible for people lower down the hierarchy - which makes it even scarcer, because people at the top of the hierarchy end up hoarding it and/or profiteering. Which is why price signals are one of the dumbest of all possible ways of managing resources. They're a political non-solution to a physical problem. You may try to argue that "incentizing efficiency" means more water is produced. But that is empirically false. The only real competition is capitalism is for shareholder cash. Customers are thrown overboard if their interests conflict with that goal. None of this solves the physical, tangible problem of providing a stable water supply. If you're having trouble understanding this, ask the people in Flint MI how making imaginary money game tokens more important than providing a usable utility has worked out for them. You might also want to look into why the UK's water companies are currently dumping raw sewage into rivers. Hint: because they can, and because it's more profitable than filtering it first.
  - gottorf 3y ago
    > Which is why price signals are one of the dumbest of all possible ways of managing resources. They're a political non-solution to a physical problem. Au contraire; distorting or ignoring price signals is the dumbest of all possible ways of managing resources, precisely because you let people pretend that the underlying realities don't need to be contended with. > Water prices reflecting scarcity are not a solution for water scarcity. I assume the GP is referring to things like how agricultural water is dirt cheap in arid parts of the US. By making those prices better reflect reality (of scarce water in those regions), water-intensive agriculture will need to happen elsewhere, freeing up water for residential consumption, for example. > why the UK's water companies are currently dumping raw sewage into rivers. Hint: because they can, and because it's more profitable than filtering it first. So you agree that price signals would fix this problem?
bigjimmyk3 3y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19953568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19953568 discussed the effects of Soviet whaling, and the article made it sound very effective.

guhidalg 3y ago

I agree with you, but I think what most people fail at is applying higher-order logic. Yes it is nice that private citizens have Jeff Bezos levels of wealth instead of monarchies or plutocrats, but at what cost? Most people are just unwilling to keep thinking about opportunity costs beyond the obvious.

WalterBright 3y ago
What cost is allowing Bezos to exist?
- guhidalg 3y ago
  Search for “pee in bottles” in this thread.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    People have always peed in bottles when they're on a long drive, piloting an airplane long distance, on a sailboat, and so on. Some peoples' bladders have a short fuse, and carry a bottle. Do you think Lindberg brought a port-a-potty along with his Spirit of St Louis? I remember the opening sequence in a Jeff Bridges movie where he pulls over in his car and dumps his pee bottle. P.S. My dad was a B-17 navigator in WW2. I asked him what did they do when had to go. He said an empty ammo box was used. What was done with the full box? "Extra bombs over Germany!"
    - yoyohello13 3y ago
      Oh good! We should all aspire to have our work conditions resemble WWII B-17 crews.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        I figgered someone would fixate on that. Well done!
        vacuity 3y ago
        You did just imply that peeing in bottles is fairly reasonable for certain hectic environments. Perhaps so, but you'd need another explanation for why it's reasonable for a workplace like Amazon's warehouses to embody that. I think there should at least be heavy scrutiny towards that premise.
        WalterBright 3y ago
        It's not the horrible thing it's made out to be. Some people may even find it preferable to unsanitary, unsafe restrooms. Heck, during the recent pandemic, all the public restrooms were locked closed. What do you think people do when they go hiking?
        vacuity 3y ago
        So Amazon can't afford to provide sanitary, safe restrooms and not overwork its employees? I don't think people go hiking because they're running from a bear or wildfire; they do it because they feel like it, and so they plan accordingly.
    - guhidalg 3y ago
      Just read the story https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/delivery-drivers-sue-amazon-for-being-forced-to-pee-in-bottles/?sh=8bbc6f4333a0 https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/de... I'd rather live in a world where Amazon employees have time to pee on the job and Jeff Bezos has $10M less. Iterate until Jeff Bezos only makes ~10^2 what the median Amazon employee makes instead of ~10^6.

pdonis 3y ago

> Wealth, at least the way we measure it, is inextricably tied to modernity. Only in the sense that modernity produces a lot more wealth than any other system humans have come up with. > What many see as prosperity, is irreconcilable with sustainability. No, it isn't. What might be is allowing people to accumulate wealth by playing zero sum games, siphoning wealth out of other people's pockets into their own, instead of producing more wealth.

Voultapher 3y ago
> Only in the sense that modernity produces a lot more wealth than any other system humans have come up with. Wealth, as measured in GDP. A metric that has proven itself a poor predictor for happiness and fulfilling lives, and we do all this at the cost to our environment https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/death-by-hockey-sticks/. > No, it isn't. Our economies, political systems and culture are all built on the concept of infinite growth. Argue as much as you want, physics makes that impossible in a universe with limited resources.
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Our economies, political systems and culture are all built on the concept of infinite growth Not really, everything could work exactly the same as now even when growth stops. The current system did bet on growth continuing for 40 more years, but there is no infinite there, other than those bets failing there is nothing in current society that demands infinite growth.

RandomLensman 3y ago

There was massive personal wealth already in antiquity and also destruction of ecosystems. Not sure that is specific to modernity.

WalterBright 3y ago

Communist societies tend to be a lot more destructive of their environments. The reason is straightforward - people take care of things that they own, they don't take care of things they don't. For example, which is threatened with extinction - ocean fish, or cows? Are you more careful with your boss's money, or your money? And so on.

poncho_romero 3y ago
Who said anything about communism? This is a false dichotomy.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The parent did: "you'd be hard pressed to find a system more effective at destroying our world"
  - poncho_romero 3y ago
    Fair enough. Still, I would disagree. Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited. Capitalism has endured great challenges for much longer, and despite increasing discontent with the system in many areas of the world, doesn’t appear likely to go anywhere. If that’s the case, the prodigious output of environmental harm capitalism generates won’t go anywhere either. Green energy and green technology won’t stop all instances of microplastics polluting our rivers or junk toys collecting in landfills.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > Communism was tried and failed, its environmental effects (while bad) were therefore limited I recall reading after the USSR collapsed that Poland was the most polluted country in the world. All due to the rush to industrialize and to heck with the environment. Chernobyl is another case about communism giving short shrift to environmental considerations.

jimbokun 3y ago

It's not a difficult problem to reconcile capitalism and sustainability from a technical perspective. Just a question of political will. Carbon taxes. Water prices reflecting scarcity. Compensating people living in rain forests to not cut down their trees. Capitalism is still the best tool we have for setting prices and incentivizing efficiency. Just needs to be guided to place appropriate prices on externalities.

TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
Water prices reflecting scarcity are not a solution for water scarcity. The problem is not enough water. You can't make water by taxing it. All you're doing is making it less accessible for people lower down the hierarchy - which makes it even scarcer, because people at the top of the hierarchy end up hoarding it and/or profiteering. Which is why price signals are one of the dumbest of all possible ways of managing resources. They're a political non-solution to a physical problem. You may try to argue that "incentizing efficiency" means more water is produced. But that is empirically false. The only real competition is capitalism is for shareholder cash. Customers are thrown overboard if their interests conflict with that goal. None of this solves the physical, tangible problem of providing a stable water supply. If you're having trouble understanding this, ask the people in Flint MI how making imaginary money game tokens more important than providing a usable utility has worked out for them. You might also want to look into why the UK's water companies are currently dumping raw sewage into rivers. Hint: because they can, and because it's more profitable than filtering it first.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > Which is why price signals are one of the dumbest of all possible ways of managing resources. They're a political non-solution to a physical problem. Au contraire; distorting or ignoring price signals is the dumbest of all possible ways of managing resources, precisely because you let people pretend that the underlying realities don't need to be contended with. > Water prices reflecting scarcity are not a solution for water scarcity. I assume the GP is referring to things like how agricultural water is dirt cheap in arid parts of the US. By making those prices better reflect reality (of scarce water in those regions), water-intensive agriculture will need to happen elsewhere, freeing up water for residential consumption, for example. > why the UK's water companies are currently dumping raw sewage into rivers. Hint: because they can, and because it's more profitable than filtering it first. So you agree that price signals would fix this problem?

bigjimmyk3 3y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19953568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19953568 discussed the effects of Soviet whaling, and the article made it sound very effective.