Well this sucks and I hate being right all the time. Ocean's heating waaay faster than thought.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
dawp

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,345
2,703
136
cytg111 said:
1 thing. You are 50+ years old and dont give a shit about your children or anyone elses future... This is not your problem, you dont care.
Click to expand...
and that is the problem, all short term gain and not a thought of the long term consequences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaskalas
dank69

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
34,574
26,888
136
dawp said:
simple question, what good is astronomical economic growth if it destroys your home in the process?
Click to expand...
Which is why conservative media for the last 40 years starting with Rush Limbaugh have been conditioning people that the idea that humans can affect the environment is hubris.
 
Paratus

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,447
12,866
146
mikeymikec said:
More like "won't". The solution is simple, but spending money on the less fortunate is terribly difficult, and believing in the 'just world' hypothesis is much cheaper (as well as personally rewarding to the more fortunate).



It doesn't address human greed though, and for the sake of keeping things simple I'll only refer to the non-malicious types of greed (e.g. wanting to buy a new phone because they're so shiny). Once the poverty-stricken are upgraded to being able to afford stuff, they're also likely to join the greedy types who feel the need to show off their new-found wealth and the polluting manufacturing practices that inevitably go with it.

It might be the case that a reduced yet largely in-poverty population has a bigger carbon footprint (due to needing to be fed, and the cost of meat production etc), than a smaller yet greater consuming population, but it might be the case that the latter poisons the Earth more.

I mention greed because it's what drives most of us and why capitalism has worked out better than alternatives, and any new way of doing things must factor in greed or inevitably fail.
Click to expand...

I understand all that. But there’s three points I think make this a net benefit rather than adding further damage to the environment.

  1. We don’t have to have the 3rd world step up to being 1st world by being 1850’s London, 1940’s Pittsburgh, or even 2000’s Beijing. Full electrification and decarbonization decouples GDP from GW. 1st world status also doesn’t have to be a US standard of living. Italy for example uses less than 1/2 as much power per capita as we do.
  2. When it comes to greed vs poverty it’s not so clear cut. You are correct well off people use more resources but the well off have the luxury to care to about the environment. If you are poor and your choice is slash and burn to plant crops or starve you are slashing and burning. If you are a poor country and your choice is burn coal or stay poor you are going to burn coal unless the economics make sense for renewables
  3. Finally if presented correctly greed could be a help instead of a hinderance. If you were a global multinational company selling widgets to folks, would you want a world of 1.5B first worlders and 10B 3rd worlders too poor to by your widgets, or a world of 7B first worlders who could all buy your widget? Poverty reduction would be a long term investment in cost avoidance and improved profit taking. The problem of course is it being long term which we suck at.
 
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
44,757
30,173
136
A lot of people seem to get hung up on defining 1st world living conditions as typical leafy big lot suburban America with 3-4 cars in the driveway, which is (for the most part) extraordinarily wasteful in all regards. Maybe go see another part of the world.
 
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
K1052 said:
A lot of people seem to get hung up on defining 1st world living conditions as typical leafy big lot suburban America with 3-4 cars in the driveway, which is (for the most part) extraordinarily wasteful in all regards. Maybe go see another part of the world.
Click to expand...

We're always going to be on the road more than many nations simply because of the huge size of our country. I'm not in a city so there's no public transportation or realistic carpool options. Four adults and four cars and we're all people who cannot "telecommute". Even so, we don't have four SUVs. What would be nice is if we had four vehicles of the same interior volume we currently own that are efficient, reliable, inexpensive, with low maintenance costs and zero emissions that recharges or refuels in minutes and has a range comparable to current models.

The "free market" model being completely wrong for the purpose means a lot of funding by Congress come the new year for paradigms which have been avoided. That would be the public funding of new technologies which are researched, designed, developed and provided to the public which are zero emission.

The question is if we're smart enough to make it happen. Oh we can do it, but with an alternate definition of stupid being greed and unwillingness to move beyond the comfortable status quo? That's the only real stumbling block.
 
Jaskalas

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
32,972
7,036
136
K1052 said:
A lot of people seem to get hung up on defining 1st world living conditions as typical leafy big lot suburban America with 3-4 cars in the driveway, which is (for the most part) extraordinarily wasteful in all regards. Maybe go see another part of the world.
Click to expand...

This is... in relation to the idea that their improved life / standard of living still won't reach our wasteful luxury?
Yet it would still reduce their birth rate?
 
Paratus

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,447
12,866
146
Jaskalas said:
This is... in relation to the idea that their improved life / standard of living still won't reach our wasteful luxury?
Yet it would still reduce their birth rate?
Click to expand...

Yup.

Take a look at the countries that have the lowest rate of natural increase (crude birth rate - crude death rate)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_natural_increase

Then compare average power per capita by country as a decent correlation to 1st world status.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
 
Vic

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,348
14,044
136
Paratus said:
  • Rapid retirement of coal power plants
  • Replaced with renewalables (solar, wind, grid storage)
  • Population reduction via poverty reduction (fewer people fewer emissions - 1st world birth rates are much lower than 3rd world)
  • Electrification of ground transportation
  • Carbon neutral fuels for maritime and aviation fuels
  • Carbon sequestration via protection and recovery of dense rainforest areas and through development of carbon neutral fuels.
The trick is do this to protect the environment while still protecting the economy. None of the items I’ve listed above require any technological breakthroughs only scaling up of already developed technologies.
Click to expand...
There's no trick. Protecting the environment through more efficient production and consumption is ALWAYS good for the overall economy. See Jevons Paradox. The notion that environmentalism must harm the economy is a myth spread by the assetholders of the status quo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17
Hayabusa Rider

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Vic said:
There's no trick. Protecting the environment through more efficient production and consumption is ALWAYS good for the overall economy. See Jevons Paradox. The notion that environmentalism must harm the economy is a myth spread by the assetholders of the status quo.
Click to expand...

I'm advocating a bypass of "free market" by directly bypassing the usual boardroom decisions based on their mandate for profit. That's what happened with Manhattan, the government didn't wait around with the hope that one day we'd have the Bomb. That, like climate, cannot afford the luxury of the status quo. The greatest enemy was time.

The thing is that a whole lot of people and businesses made fortunes based on what was done during and after WWII. The same would be true now as businesses already have the capacity to produce that government does not and it would be most efficient to bring everyone including private industry in on the process. The key thing is that business as usual, lawyering up over patents to bury or impede would have to go and if that requires rewriting patent laws so be it. All that is needed is the vision and will, admittedly the scarcest resources of all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Paratus

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,447
12,866
146
Vic said:
There's no trick. Protecting the environment through more efficient production and consumption is ALWAYS good for the overall economy. See Jevons Paradox. The notion that environmentalism must harm the economy is a myth spread by the assetholders of the status quo.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree but the problem as you put it is people believe it’s an either/or situation. If you don’t at least address most who believe the myth won’t even read what you wrote.
 
S

Stokely

Golden Member
Jun 5, 2017
1,444
1,745
136
Not a problem, according to my Evangelical relatives. End Times (tm) are a'comin', so what happens here on Earth matters little! Party like it's 1999!

I pointed out the fact that many of us don't believe in that, so failing to take action to protect the ecology we live in is a very dire thing to us--well, the Bible is "truth" as much as the words of any scientist.

I just avoid them now...they are out of my life, and out of my kids' lives, for this and other attitudes. They are the problem in this country, not all the so-called evils they rail against. To borrow a phrase from dear leader: Christians are the true enemy of the people from where I stand. Or to be broad-minded, I'll include any religious sect or cult that feels it's ok to let the world burn because their fairy tale says paradise awaits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie, Franz316 and darkswordsman17
K1052

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
44,757
30,173
136
Hayabusa Rider said:
We're always going to be on the road more than many nations simply because of the huge size of our country. I'm not in a city so there's no public transportation or realistic carpool options. Four adults and four cars and we're all people who cannot "telecommute". Even so, we don't have four SUVs. What would be nice is if we had four vehicles of the same interior volume we currently own that are efficient, reliable, inexpensive, with low maintenance costs and zero emissions that recharges or refuels in minutes and has a range comparable to current models.

The "free market" model being completely wrong for the purpose means a lot of funding by Congress come the new year for paradigms which have been avoided. That would be the public funding of new technologies which are researched, designed, developed and provided to the public which are zero emission.

The question is if we're smart enough to make it happen. Oh we can do it, but with an alternate definition of stupid being greed and unwillingness to move beyond the comfortable status quo? That's the only real stumbling block.
Click to expand...

I'm not really talking about rural/smaller town America. More mid to outer ring suburbs and exurbs that went up surrounding cities.
 
D

darkswordsman17

Lifer
Mar 11, 2004
22,808
5,207
146
brycejones said:
Its so more "special" rain can fall and turn frogs gay. George Soros is really a gay amphibian.
Click to expand...

Wait, there's Amphibians as well as those fucking Reptilians?!?

(FYI, this is a real conspiracy theory, and by that I mean, this isn't just random shit made up, a lot of these other conspiracies are either enabling or the belief that there are a multitude of alien races on Earth manipulating things is the bedrock for stuff like the Soros shit. I feel like people really gloss over how fucking insane the conspiracy shitheads are. Not sure if you played the story part of Perfect Dark, but it was based on a lot of the framework that conspiracy theorists established; I remember thinking it was absurd and pretty stupid to the point of not being compelling when I played it in high school and I had no idea how much it actually followed the conspiracy shit which has since caused me to develop a weird appreciation in that they held true to that even though it was so fucking bizarre and nonsensical).
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Muse

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
36,947
7,818
136
Muse said:
Democracy seems a wonderful idea until you have a 5 minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill

Edit: Actually an internet search reveals that Churchill never said that.
Famous words Churchill never said. An interesting read!
Click to expand...
You know, I saw a portrait of Winston Churchill in a picture on the wall behind Trump recently (or short video), on the news. I was predictably offended by this (every time I see or hear from that man, I'm offended). Fact is, there could hardly be more contrast between the two men. Churchill was one of the greatest statesmen in history. He was also possibly the most learned. He was an absolute scholar of history and a writer of history of considerable accomplishment. Trump is an ignoramus even by comparison with run of the mill politicians. And don't kid yourself Trump isn't a politician. He'd like you to think he isn't but he's the worst kind of politician. He'll do and say virtually anything for votes and power. Anti-intellectualism in the USA is so rampant that this is an advantage. We live in very sour times.
 
Last edited:
D

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
13,175
11,001
146
SlowSpyder said:
Yet here we are a scant handful of decades later with well over 2x as many people since then. What do you think that means for 50-60 years from now?
Click to expand...
Population growth rate is different from population growth levels. Yes, the world population is rising, the rate of rise is slowing, though.

Population growth is a problem, but a runaway global environmental meltdown will kill 10m as easily as it will 10b.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom