Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by marcus_holmes 2522 days ago
Sorry, what? We should not have solved those problems because being able to solve those problems makes it harder to solve this problem? How does that work?

You've got to remember, the Hole in the Ozone Layer was just as threatening at the time as Climate Change. It was literally going to fry us all within a decade because of extreme UV. We'd be living in underground bunkers by now. And then we stopped using CFC's and it stopped growing, and we're all good now, thanks. Except the next disaster that was going to kill us all came along...
1 comments
wccrawford 2521 days ago
As I explained, having solved all the other problems without people having to do anything that wasn't mandated by law makes them think that they shouldn't have to do anything that isn't mandated by law. And the more times we do it that way, they more they'll think that.

We're probably already past the event horizon on that issue. At this point, there's probably no way to make it happen that doesn't involved laws.

link
marcus_holmes 2521 days ago
But this is exactly the same situation as with the nukes:

There's no way any of us can change the situation individually. We're past the event horizon; nuclear war/catastrophic climate change is a certainty, and we're all going to die. Some brave individuals are protesting against it, and some people are preparing for it. But for most of us, it's a done deal.

I have a theory that it actually allows people to stop worrying about the future, and therefore we don't have to make long-term decisions. It's actually comforting in a "what's the point of saving money, we're all going to die in a nuclear holocaust/climate heatwave anyway. Might as well spend it down the pub now..." way.

link