5 ms·

> Fighting against climate change means building, whether that’s large solar arrays, sprawling wind farms, or powerful fission reactors Can we, maybe, consider

> Fighting against climate change means building, whether that’s large solar arrays, sprawling wind farms, or powerful fission reactors Can we, maybe, consider using fewer resources? Are we past the point of imagining that we could possibly get by with a sustainable lifestyle?

jajko 2y ago
Not with electric cars slowly coming, our current infra at its max here in Switzerland ain't enough for any serious mass electrification. They dwarf all combined electricity usage by huge margin. And somebody has to generate all of it.
- smallerfish 2y ago
  You have a source on that? Sounds a lot like oil company fud. Couple of results from the top 5 when searching for this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-electric-vehicles-wont-break-the-grid/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-electric-vehi... https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-...
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/images/consumption-by-source-and-sector.pdf https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/images/c... Transportation in the US consumed ~27.5 quadrillion BTUs, electricity consumption was ~13.3 quadrillion BTUs, about ½ transportation use.
- kibwen 2y ago
  I think this is unintentionally falling into the trap that the parent commenter is railing against. Lowering consumption does not mean going from fossil cars to electric cars, it means going from cars to modes of transportation that aren't so inherently wasteful and inefficient as cars.
nerdponx 2y ago
You're asking a large number of people to substantially reduce their standards of living. Think of the sheer amount of energy required daily in even a "sustainable" lifestyle in a modern developed economy. And then of course there are the powerful financial incentives to not care about sustainability at all, or what's worse to spend more energy than before on products that are meant to seem sustainable (but aren't), because actual sustainable practices aren't good business on the scale of shareholder lifetimes. Maybe it should happen, but it's a long uphill battle.
CoastalCoder 2y ago
> Can we, maybe, consider using fewer resources? I'm not optimistic about schemes that require almost everyone to sacrifice for the common good, but which (implicitly) reward parties that cheat. More specifically, I don't see how this would ever work at an international level, due to trade / military competition. I think it's part of the tragedy of human nature.
pfdietz 2y ago
Yes, let's propose fundamentally altering human nature. This is an approach that cannot help but be successful, with zero chance of horrific side effects in its implementation!
- troyvit 2y ago
  I mean honestly war is a fundamental part of human nature, and if we just got a little bit better at that we could solve the rest of our resource consumption issues quickly. Might be a little ancillary damage but you can't make an omelette if you don't break a few eggs! What you might be calling "human nature" is different from country to country. For instance while 5-10% of Americans are vegetarian, 30% of Indians are. Imagine the change in resource consumption if that same number applied to the U.S. Bottom line is humans talk a big game of having more complex reasoning and and problem solving abilities compared to other, less self-aware species, but when it comes down to not mistreating the earth we at HN have a new mantra of "you can't change human nature." To me it just sounds like people throwing in the towel so they can keep consuming 80% of the world's resources.
badcppdev 2y ago
Are you willing to feed your family at the low level currently available to the poorer humans on this planet? And convince your parents to not access healthcare that might use quite a large amount of resources to deliver?
- mcdonje 2y ago
  This isn't a reasonable response. They didn't propose cutting out basic needs.
  - candiodari 2y ago
    [dead]
  - badcppdev 2y ago
    Privileged delusional fools propose sustainable lifestyles totally ignoring that there are 8,113,289,337 humans and a large percentage of them do not have basic needs met at the moment. Humanity requires better technology to provide modern healthcare and food to everybody.

jajko 2y ago

Not with electric cars slowly coming, our current infra at its max here in Switzerland ain't enough for any serious mass electrification. They dwarf all combined electricity usage by huge margin. And somebody has to generate all of it.

smallerfish 2y ago
You have a source on that? Sounds a lot like oil company fud. Couple of results from the top 5 when searching for this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-electric-vehicles-wont-break-the-grid/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-electric-vehi... https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-...
- jcranmer 2y ago
  https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/images/consumption-by-source-and-sector.pdf https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/images/c... Transportation in the US consumed ~27.5 quadrillion BTUs, electricity consumption was ~13.3 quadrillion BTUs, about ½ transportation use.
kibwen 2y ago
I think this is unintentionally falling into the trap that the parent commenter is railing against. Lowering consumption does not mean going from fossil cars to electric cars, it means going from cars to modes of transportation that aren't so inherently wasteful and inefficient as cars.

nerdponx 2y ago

You're asking a large number of people to substantially reduce their standards of living. Think of the sheer amount of energy required daily in even a "sustainable" lifestyle in a modern developed economy. And then of course there are the powerful financial incentives to not care about sustainability at all, or what's worse to spend more energy than before on products that are meant to seem sustainable (but aren't), because actual sustainable practices aren't good business on the scale of shareholder lifetimes. Maybe it should happen, but it's a long uphill battle.

CoastalCoder 2y ago

> Can we, maybe, consider using fewer resources? I'm not optimistic about schemes that require almost everyone to sacrifice for the common good, but which (implicitly) reward parties that cheat. More specifically, I don't see how this would ever work at an international level, due to trade / military competition. I think it's part of the tragedy of human nature.

pfdietz 2y ago

Yes, let's propose fundamentally altering human nature. This is an approach that cannot help but be successful, with zero chance of horrific side effects in its implementation!

troyvit 2y ago
I mean honestly war is a fundamental part of human nature, and if we just got a little bit better at that we could solve the rest of our resource consumption issues quickly. Might be a little ancillary damage but you can't make an omelette if you don't break a few eggs! What you might be calling "human nature" is different from country to country. For instance while 5-10% of Americans are vegetarian, 30% of Indians are. Imagine the change in resource consumption if that same number applied to the U.S. Bottom line is humans talk a big game of having more complex reasoning and and problem solving abilities compared to other, less self-aware species, but when it comes down to not mistreating the earth we at HN have a new mantra of "you can't change human nature." To me it just sounds like people throwing in the towel so they can keep consuming 80% of the world's resources.

badcppdev 2y ago

Are you willing to feed your family at the low level currently available to the poorer humans on this planet? And convince your parents to not access healthcare that might use quite a large amount of resources to deliver?

mcdonje 2y ago
This isn't a reasonable response. They didn't propose cutting out basic needs.
- candiodari 2y ago
  [dead]
- badcppdev 2y ago
  Privileged delusional fools propose sustainable lifestyles totally ignoring that there are 8,113,289,337 humans and a large percentage of them do not have basic needs met at the moment. Humanity requires better technology to provide modern healthcare and food to everybody.