Comment by swombat | Hacker News Reader

Comment by swombat | Hacker News Reader

I find this kind of article worrying. It clearly claims that the only true way forward is "to abolish the industrial society".

I think that's a very limited view of the situation.

Whenever faced with a big new problem, there are two ways to get past that problem: either you backtrack, regress back to times when the problem didn't exist, or you move forward, and figure out ways to solve the problem without turning your back on progress.

This author effectively advocates turning our backs on progress, giving up the last few hundred years of development. He would have us go back to living in small self-sufficient communes, rather than focusing on growth and progress, to "save the planet". This suggestion is dangerously wrong. It is not "solving the problem", it is running away from it. The way through this problem is forwards, not backwards.

Ultimately, there is only one reason to "save the planet": so that we can enjoy it. There is no point in saving the planet if it means sacrificing ourselves along the way. AS the author rightly points out, killing ourselves to save the planet misses the point. Well, so does regressing back a few hundred years. We are who we are, we are a people/species who want to enjoy our lives, realise our potential, look to the future, move forwards, built greater, better, bigger things. That's basic human nature. The proposed solution goes against this basic human nature, and so it must ultimately fail (but it can probably cause endless misery before finally being thrown in the bin along with communism, theocracy, feodalism, and other Bad Ideas).

It is quite possible that fanatical ecologism will be the great blight of the 21st century, as fanatical nationalism was the great blight of the 20th.

I'm all for the good things in modern life, dentists, technology &c &c and I don't believe that the author is explicitly against this either.

Rather his main point was that we-the-people have been manipulated into thinking that the onus of environmental destruction is squarely upon our shoulders, as opposed to the meta-shoulders of "industry".

The whole back-to-the-land ideal is flawed and short-sighted, as he suggests making changes at the personal level is pointless if mandates at the government/global level end up being the cause of all the damage. Sweeping change is needed but of course this doens't mean stand at the barricades waving gaia flags revolution. It's just that revolution in a che-guavera/1917 fashion is far more romantic than revolution in the form of sensible change brought about by public opinion & lobbying and all that.

The article isn't worrying, it's just wrong. We can easily reduce US emissions by 80% without having to destroy the industrial economy. In fact, the most pessimistic of the economic studies shows (IIRC) that cutting emissions 80% would put our economy on track to double in size by June of 2040 instead of January of 2040.

The people who think that reducing emissions means destroying the economy are just idiots. California is well on their way to doing it already, and they have by far the strongest economy of any state.

the most pessimistic of the economic studies shows (IIRC) that cutting emissions 80% would put our economy on track to double in size by June of 2040 instead of January of 2040.

Wow! Can you please provide a citation?

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/2009/06/d...

It's actually even less bad than I thought, because that six month difference is for 2050 rather than 2040.

Well that is indeed impressive, with two caveats:

1) I'm not sure why it's the forecast of the most pessimistic

2) The 80% reduction won't kick in until 2050. Indeed there won't even be a 20% reduction until 2020.

Really, California has a strong solvent economy. Yes they have a high gdp, but their government is in serious debt. I realize that their problems aren't only or possibly at all because of pushing an environmental agenda, but I wouldn't use California as an example of how environmentalism makes sense economically.

Measuring the economic effects of environmental legislation by looking at government debt is like measuring the speed of your car by looking at the price of apples.

I could agree more, but it would require surgery.

I'm all for a high-quality, environmentally-friendly lifestyle, but the way to do this is forward, through technology and innovation. Not by moving back into teepees.

I couldn't disagree more.

While it is informative to know that showering for a short period is not an effective way to conserve water in the grand scheme of things, there is no doubt that it is critital for us to conserve water. The important thing is that the awareness and sense of responsibility is present. That good-will can be transferred from ineffective actions to effective ones, and we'll be able to craft effective - and not extremist - conservation policy.

It is critical for us to solve the water problem. It is not critical for us to conserve water. If we can solve the water problem by another way, so much the better.

Indirected good will is a dangerous reservoir of activity that could be directed in directions both good and bad. Throughout history, this sort of thing has led to tyrants and other political disasters.

lol good will is dangerous? You manage to invoke Hitler from saving shower water. You can spin anything to look like its looming Fascism, but I suspect you've been reading a bit too much Erich Fromm.

I invoke Godwin's law. Wanting to save water fascist? Jesus man, get a grip. Is everything that might inconvenience you in any way a danger of fascism?

In Atlanta, we've had a drought - we use almost all our local reservoir for non-industrial use. We almost went on rationing last year. If we had more efficient appliances, we wouldn't be in such trouble. Is that fascist?

You made up the Hitler reference!

I reject your invocation of Godwin's law.

I did not bring up fascist!

I reject your rejection.

"It is quite possible that fanatical ecologism will be the great blight of the 21st century, as fanatical nationalism was the great blight of the 20th."

"Throughout history, this sort of thing has led to tyrants and other political disasters."

The connection with tyranny is so tenuous that its hilarious that its being upvoted. "People are motivated. That is dangerous."

Really says a lot about the Hacker News audience.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com