The concept that we’re resource constrained to the extent that we’re beyond the carrying capacity of the world is beyond ridiculous
We have a greed, fear and distribution problem, not a production problem
Nobody needs a Ferrari when there’s still politically unstable regions of the world that could use the energy and care that went into creating such luxuries
And yes work and energy are fungible, so every minute and joule spent creating an NFT could have been spent talking with a homeless person or taking someone in off the street for a night (often that’s all it takes).
Don’t complain about the state of the world unless you’re actively fixing it
>Don’t complain about the state of the world unless you’re actively fixing it
What kind of backwards ass thinking is this. I mean, stop and think for at least one second before typing things like this.
If I'm living hand to mouth, as in if I stop farming my own food I'll quickly starve it would be stupid to, one, stop growing my own stuff because I'll starve otherwise, and two, not complain about the situation because it's a terrible place to be.
By complaining someone with wealthy, time, and intelligence may be able to find a solution that I can implement into my life without causing a death spiral.
How could you possibly interpret what I wrote as an exhortation against the poor?
Should I specifically explicate the groups that this exhortation is targeted to?
Use your judgement based on the content and context instead of requiring me to think for you and fully solve all of the questions you might have.
Do you own a Ferrari? Are you taking the Delta flight? Can you extrapolate from those two examples of egregious veblen good luxuries (Veblen himself writkng a thourough exhortation himself!) to think of other ones which do or do not apply to you and then you determine whether that applies?
No, “Don’t complain about the state of the world unless you are actively fixing it” is _explicitly_ excluding everyone who isn’t wealthy enough to do so.
Try reading your own words once in a while rather than pretending that you intended something all along and everyone else should have the same context in your head.
Sure, there's plenty of inequality and bad[1] resource allocation throughout the planet.
>The concept that we’re resource constrained to the extent that we’re beyond the carrying capacity of the world is beyond ridiculous
We definitely are beyond the carrying capacity of the world, if we want to guarantee a high standard of life for everybody here. 99.9999% of humans will lack the chance of being able to experience the upcoming eclipse from a plane, would you argue that's an unfair scenario?
>Don’t complain about the state of the world unless you’re actively fixing it.
I absolutely like this comment because that's the way I also go through life, since if one doesn't practice what they preach, one would be just another meek hypocrite, of which we already have an overpopulation of. I can presume, then, that you are doing your part to solve the "greed, fear and distribution" problem you mention, by lowering the amount of resources you consume to one that is typical of what the vast majority of the planet lives on?
Nobody needs drones and a robot pet when there’s still politically unstable regions of the world that could use the energy and care that went into creating such luxuries. [2]
What I'm saying between lines is that almost nobody with a high standard of life would be willing to give up on whatever luxuries they enjoy to give a chance to "some other people in a remote place" which is a very abstract concept and quite detached from one's own reality.
You like drones and robots, right? That's good, not an issue with that on itself. Now give 8 billion people drones and robots, that's where your logic comes down. If we only had drones and robots for 0.1% of the total population, who should get to enjoy them? Then this whole thing gets hairy. And bringing more people into the equation will not alleviate that problem, it would only make it worse.
Unfortunately you keep making it a "you" thing with your argument and are ignorant of the situation. These are robots I use for work that I keep in my house.
There is nothing wrong with that Delta eclipse viewing flight so long as they had mandated direct air carbon capture offsets to offset the flight. The fact that they haven't is the problem, not the flight itself. Take issue with the externalities dumped elsewhere, not on the activity. If you pay the fully loaded costs, by all means, partake in your CO2 emission activity (beef, air travel, etc). Current DAC cost is ~$800-1300/ton of CO2 sequestered. That is the cost of these activities. The fact that people don't want to pay that for luxury activities is the greed, not the activity itself.
Humanity has been living on credit by way of not paying fully loaded costs, in a variety of ways (entitlement programs and economic systems depending on never ending growth, CO2 emissions and cheap energy, plastics, and so on). The bill is coming due, and there will be sadness.
> Don’t complain about the state of the world unless you’re actively fixing it
I am sure it is highly variable, but I wonder what the cost of negative soil CO2 sequestration techniques like biochar, is these days? Or even just land use improvements to sequester more CO2, seems like lower hanging fruit than DAC.
May be so, since humans are humans and do human lies.
I think in a perfect world that land rehabilitation and land CO2 sequestration projects coupled with solar+wind+nuclear+geo+friends energy would get us to carbon neutral much faster than DAC, but hopefully I am wrong and DAC can be scaled up without exorbitantly high costs.
Often all it takes to get someone into a better life position is listening to their story and finding the space to help as much as you can.
I helped my friend J get out of the woods two years ago, and I’m currently working with my new friends “R” and “M” and “D” (not going to out them) to get them permanent housing or vehicles.
All from just a simple conversation seeing how they were living and taking them through what they need to get back on their feet.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39447603
The concept that we’re resource constrained to the extent that we’re beyond the carrying capacity of the world is beyond ridiculous
We have a greed, fear and distribution problem, not a production problem
Nobody needs a Ferrari when there’s still politically unstable regions of the world that could use the energy and care that went into creating such luxuries
And yes work and energy are fungible, so every minute and joule spent creating an NFT could have been spent talking with a homeless person or taking someone in off the street for a night (often that’s all it takes).
Don’t complain about the state of the world unless you’re actively fixing it