Comment by karaterobot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by karaterobot | Hacker News Reader

I think the point of making this comparison is to say "See, Americans have resisted changes in their energy sources before, just like they're resisting it today."

If so, I have a few issues with it:

1. Everyone who resisted the transition to coal in the 1800s-1860s has been dead for over a hundred years. A different set of people are resisting it now. They don't know each other, or coordinate. They don't draw inspiration from each other. Much has happened in the interim. So, this feels like a meaningless historical anecdote, and not an enlightening framing device.

2. The vast majority of Americans support solar and wind energy as power sources. Around 80% support for increasing both solar and wind energy[1].

3. Coal isn't sustainable and it's a huge source of air pollution. That's how we phrase it today, whereas in the 19th century they complained about not being able to grow coal themselves, and about it being a "secret poisoner". But the complaints amount to the same thing. On what basis do we imply their concerns were ignorant and short-sighted when it seems like they turned out to be essentially correct?

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/06/08/most-americ...

To your first point, what is interesting, and often frustrating, is exactly what you’re saying: people resisting change now did not learn from people then. Quite the opposite. The point is that people often defend their status quo ignorant of the fact that it itself is the result of many historical transformations. The institution of marriage is a good example. Another is behavior that is considered gender normative.

It’s quite interesting how even the wording echoes over time. Hawthorne’s belief that firelight is essential to discourse reminds me of the critiques of mass newspaper reading (that modern society would be ruined because everyone would have their face in a newspaper), or how novel reading would bring ruin to women.

The point being that the status quo today, or the status quo in the 1950’s, is itself the result of many changes that people at the time thought were ruinous, from mass reading, to bibles written in colloquial speech, to voluntary marriage.

This does not mean resistance to change is bad: it certainly seems like a useful reflex to keep chaos at bay. Your third point is quite apropos. A good example of that as well was the popular resistance to the automobile. People at the time saw the mounting fatalities, the congestion and pollution, all of which is so normalized today.

People definitely knew that coal soot was a health issue - the town I grew in exists because those who could fled NYC in the summer.

But a lot of the reaction was like today economic. If you owned mills or real estate around steams, the notion of some upstart putting you out of business with a steam powered facility was not well received. Lots of people rag on electric cars, because they are one of the millions of people making a living based on ICE cars who will find themselves redundant.

I agree with you that the analogy to the modern day is a stretch, but I enjoyed the historical story anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com