4 ms·

The issue is made clear here: > When oil got cheap and plentiful after World War II, humans didn’t enjoy the savings. They built more cars. In the same way ch

by rini17 2y ago

The issue is made clear here: > When oil got cheap and plentiful after World War II, humans didn’t enjoy the savings. They built more cars. In the same way cheap solar will induce massive demand for all kinds of stuff, which is still made by emitting CO2. Like, yes, your car has lower carbon footprint than ICE car. But it has some, and far from negligible. And when billions of newly minted middle class buy their own first car, it will add up, even if these are all solar powered BEVs. Maybe it will turn into a nonproblem, idk(that happens rarely)...but our predictions and projections ough to be fixed in any case.

RandomThoughts3 2y ago
> And when billions of newly minted middle class buy their own first car Where are these supposed billions? Because populations are either already contracting or on the verge of contracting nearly everywhere: China, India, Nigeria, even Pakistan, etc. The first things people do when they get richer is that they stop having so many kids.
- rini17 2y ago
  In Africa and Asia. Or they will all die off in just few decades?
  - 1oooqooq 2y ago
    it's so boring. it's a lame balancing act by the elites who based all their livelihood off masses of people to explore, and the need to be sensible with resources to keep the status quo a little longer. china, when they were briefly communists, put a population limit as it was sensible when the plan was to make everyone enjoy the benefits of society. ...then they jumped to capitalism as usual and changed gears.
  - RandomThoughts3 2y ago
    We all die in just a few decades. Anyway, there are no billions of new middle class people ready to buy a car there. You are far, far overestimating the growth potential and at the same time underestimating the current rate of vehicles ownership (mostly two wheeled). Electrification, certainly, more A/C definitely, more cars, sure a bit but infrastructures are already under heavy load which limits the interest. Billions of cars, never.
anonymouskimmer 2y ago
I think the greatest chance of this turning into a "nonproblem" is for these developing countries to skip ahead of the developed countries (particularly the US). Most countries are a lot smaller than the US and can do even better than cars with E-bikes and good public transportation infrastructure in the cities. In the country I would think cars are less needed given the percent of the population who are farmers or the like. I would think a community owned or rental car kind of situation would be a lot more efficient and cost effective than private ownership. For right now housing improvements and household appliances deliver a lot more value. They, too, will use power, but they can also save power through efficiency advances.
- rini17 2y ago
  You're forgetting car is a symbol of freedom and wealth and these always trump efficiency.
  - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
    If the city isn't built up around the existence of cars it's a lot more difficult to shoehorn them in.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    This is really only true in the US, and only in the last 70 years. I can think of more than a few symbols that would be more fitting for those values than a car.
  - WorldMaker 2y ago
    The car is a symbol of freedom and wealth in the US. The fun part about rising nations speed running US industrialization/wealth is that they can also skip the marketing-influenced/embellished parts. Just because US marketers were too great at selling the ideas of the "nuclear family" and suburbs designed only for lots of cars (subsequently accidentally destroying much of the urban environment), doesn't mean that's the best way to sell cars in a rising nation. Different nations, different national ideals, different ways to view wealth (and freedom). US marketing still isn't "manifest destiny" for the world's views, even though it likes to think it is (even with the US military backing it).
bitwize 2y ago
The three P's: powerdown, permaculture, population control. Industrial civilization and reproducing too quickly must be made taboo. The only way humanity survives is as small pockets of preindustrial, agrarian societies, and in far fewer numbers than exist today. We can -- and humans have -- endured for millennia this way. Industrial civilization has less than a century on its rapidly ticking clock. " If you believe the myths of science, the Tolowa lived in this region for at least 12,500 years. If you believe the myths of the Tolowa, they lived here since the beginning of time." --Derrick Jensen Oh, and uh, forget about going to space.
- hedora 2y ago
  Or, we could invest in environmental remediation, which drives economic growth, and doesn’t make literally everything worse for everyone. This worked great in the past, and we already have proven out the technology that we need for the next 50-100 years. The main problem I see is political corruption, and greed / laziness from vested interests. Edit: Concretely, we know how to make gasoline carbon negative for $1/gallon. Permaculture sounds good, but the yield per acre (and man hour) is way worse than comparably good conventional techniques like no-till, which we should have moved to 30 years ago.
- thworp 2y ago
  Alright, let‘s make a deal then. We will do some horse trading in the UN and purchase one or more islands for all you degrowth enthusiasts. We will even give you all the support we can in returning the soil and ocean to a healthier state. In return anyone leaving the island stays gone and can never publicly talk about degrowth and their dreams of ending civilization. Also, you must tell your children the truth about all the accomplishments of industrial society. I agree that our prehistoric ancestors were the most stable populations when looking at them from very far away. You seem to actually want to return to their brutal and ignorant lives. Well go ahead, put some skin in the game before publicly advocating for the death of billions.
- southernplaces7 2y ago
  >The only way humanity survives is as small pockets of preindustrial, agrarian societies, and in far fewer numbers than exist today. Aside from the complete practical and moral wrongness of all the nonsense you just said, there's the hypocrisy. You state the above while using either a desktop device or phone to comment on a site like HN (and presumably interact with many other sites on the web), with all of these and your device being pinnacle product results of a mass industrial modern society. Not to mention your lament that billions don't die to have "far fewer numbers", while obviously keeping yourself alive despite this regret about all those others.

by rini17 2y ago

RandomThoughts3 2y ago

> And when billions of newly minted middle class buy their own first car Where are these supposed billions? Because populations are either already contracting or on the verge of contracting nearly everywhere: China, India, Nigeria, even Pakistan, etc. The first things people do when they get richer is that they stop having so many kids.

rini17 2y ago
In Africa and Asia. Or they will all die off in just few decades?
- 1oooqooq 2y ago
  it's so boring. it's a lame balancing act by the elites who based all their livelihood off masses of people to explore, and the need to be sensible with resources to keep the status quo a little longer. china, when they were briefly communists, put a population limit as it was sensible when the plan was to make everyone enjoy the benefits of society. ...then they jumped to capitalism as usual and changed gears.
- RandomThoughts3 2y ago
  We all die in just a few decades. Anyway, there are no billions of new middle class people ready to buy a car there. You are far, far overestimating the growth potential and at the same time underestimating the current rate of vehicles ownership (mostly two wheeled). Electrification, certainly, more A/C definitely, more cars, sure a bit but infrastructures are already under heavy load which limits the interest. Billions of cars, never.

anonymouskimmer 2y ago

I think the greatest chance of this turning into a "nonproblem" is for these developing countries to skip ahead of the developed countries (particularly the US). Most countries are a lot smaller than the US and can do even better than cars with E-bikes and good public transportation infrastructure in the cities. In the country I would think cars are less needed given the percent of the population who are farmers or the like. I would think a community owned or rental car kind of situation would be a lot more efficient and cost effective than private ownership. For right now housing improvements and household appliances deliver a lot more value. They, too, will use power, but they can also save power through efficiency advances.

rini17 2y ago
You're forgetting car is a symbol of freedom and wealth and these always trump efficiency.
- anonymouskimmer 2y ago
  If the city isn't built up around the existence of cars it's a lot more difficult to shoehorn them in.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  This is really only true in the US, and only in the last 70 years. I can think of more than a few symbols that would be more fitting for those values than a car.
- WorldMaker 2y ago
  The car is a symbol of freedom and wealth in the US. The fun part about rising nations speed running US industrialization/wealth is that they can also skip the marketing-influenced/embellished parts. Just because US marketers were too great at selling the ideas of the "nuclear family" and suburbs designed only for lots of cars (subsequently accidentally destroying much of the urban environment), doesn't mean that's the best way to sell cars in a rising nation. Different nations, different national ideals, different ways to view wealth (and freedom). US marketing still isn't "manifest destiny" for the world's views, even though it likes to think it is (even with the US military backing it).

bitwize 2y ago

The three P's: powerdown, permaculture, population control. Industrial civilization and reproducing too quickly must be made taboo. The only way humanity survives is as small pockets of preindustrial, agrarian societies, and in far fewer numbers than exist today. We can -- and humans have -- endured for millennia this way. Industrial civilization has less than a century on its rapidly ticking clock. " If you believe the myths of science, the Tolowa lived in this region for at least 12,500 years. If you believe the myths of the Tolowa, they lived here since the beginning of time." --Derrick Jensen Oh, and uh, forget about going to space.

hedora 2y ago
Or, we could invest in environmental remediation, which drives economic growth, and doesn’t make literally everything worse for everyone. This worked great in the past, and we already have proven out the technology that we need for the next 50-100 years. The main problem I see is political corruption, and greed / laziness from vested interests. Edit: Concretely, we know how to make gasoline carbon negative for $1/gallon. Permaculture sounds good, but the yield per acre (and man hour) is way worse than comparably good conventional techniques like no-till, which we should have moved to 30 years ago.
thworp 2y ago
Alright, let‘s make a deal then. We will do some horse trading in the UN and purchase one or more islands for all you degrowth enthusiasts. We will even give you all the support we can in returning the soil and ocean to a healthier state. In return anyone leaving the island stays gone and can never publicly talk about degrowth and their dreams of ending civilization. Also, you must tell your children the truth about all the accomplishments of industrial society. I agree that our prehistoric ancestors were the most stable populations when looking at them from very far away. You seem to actually want to return to their brutal and ignorant lives. Well go ahead, put some skin in the game before publicly advocating for the death of billions.
southernplaces7 2y ago
>The only way humanity survives is as small pockets of preindustrial, agrarian societies, and in far fewer numbers than exist today. Aside from the complete practical and moral wrongness of all the nonsense you just said, there's the hypocrisy. You state the above while using either a desktop device or phone to comment on a site like HN (and presumably interact with many other sites on the web), with all of these and your device being pinnacle product results of a mass industrial modern society. Not to mention your lament that billions don't die to have "far fewer numbers", while obviously keeping yourself alive despite this regret about all those others.