krie

7 ms·

1.
by krie 14y ago
You're not even able to moderate yourself to "could" be astounding, it WILL be astounding, categorically? Is there anything pointing toward such being able to reach fruition? Not really.
2.
by krie 14y ago
I get it. Still annoying that I'm reduced to a simple "Malthusian" for espousing that resource depletion is a problem that's insurmountably difficult to "solve".
3.
by krie 14y ago
Except, the population in the first world will be hit as well. Do you think 315 million Americans makes the USA not overpopulated?
4.
by krie 14y ago
I think it's interesting to discuss it here, the zenith of technocopian optimism and futurism. There's a host of intelligent people frequenting Hacker News, but few have any idea what sort of trouble we are in. No conscious thought at all a
5.
by krie 14y ago
There is no God, remember? Also, are you trying to be clever, offensive or something else entirely by contributing with silly one-liners?
6.
by krie 14y ago
Whether it stops at 8 or 9 billion doesn't really make an impact until 2150 at best. IF we had the resources to keep everything puffing till then. We don't. :)
7.
by krie 14y ago
The biggest problem is resource depletion and overpopulation. Overpopulation will be "fixed" through starvation and death. Resource depletion will leave the current young and future generations with far less extravagant lives. Adding to the
8.
by krie 14y ago
Nobody has even come close at finding anything as useful as hydrocarbons. I bid you good luck. If he's < 5 he won't even have the chance as we're past the net energy peak from oil.
9.
by krie 14y ago
Another related book is "What is sustainable": http://www.amazon.com/What-Sustainable-Remembering-Our-Home/...
10.
by krie 14y ago
Yes, it's the most peaceful in absolute numbers. It's also the shittiest in absolute numbers. Subsidized by cheap, surplus energy, courtesy of ancient plant and dino matter.
11.
by krie 14y ago
Don't have kids. They will have far shittier lives, not to mention shorter, than yours, thanks to the end of cheap fossil fuels. They're also a hundred thousand dollar expense. Do not want! I suppose most of you are so prone to optimist thi
12.
by krie 14y ago
Club of Rome tried to warn, but since we wanted growth, collapse is what "we" "deserve". Thanks former generations for not heeding the rational advice.
13.
by krie 14y ago
Batteries can't be an alternative because: 1) They need fossil fuels and finite minerals/metals to be manufactured and transported 2) The EROEI is way less The earth had plenty of room and resources before we "decided" (we didn't, we're hum
14.
by krie 14y ago
No, because even if we got more of those (and fossil fuels, the most crucial component of our "prosperous" Western societies aren't available from the skies) we wouldn't solve the most conspicuous problem: growth. Billions will die in this
15.
by krie 14y ago
Never is the most realistic deadline.
16.
by krie 14y ago
Yeah, no. Elon Musk should instead focus on fixing the Peaks that will make the Almighty Industrial Revolution look like a blip on the easel of the history of history. Space travel, cars and the Internet has no future beyond the next 10~ ye
17.
by krie 14y ago
You're only sorry your comment was noticed and attacked.
18.
Unflinching, unquestioning, irrational optimism and futurism
1 points by krie 14y ago|0 comments