[RC_ITR]

Sure I just wish for ONCE the goal of the hacking zeitgeist on here would be “how do we get around limits to do something good for society” rather than “how do we use our cleverness to exempt ourselves from the rules that enable society?”

[giantg2]

I'll probably get downvoted, but...

Maybe we also accept that some limits can't be surpassed, at least not at an acceptable cost. In my opinion, the world cannot sustainably support so many people. So artificial limits we like to defeat, natural limits are much tougher.

[eru]

What do you mean by 'so many people'?

The carrying capacity of earth is likely hundreds of billions of humans, if we were to set our mind to it.

Just to concentrate on food alone: we are barely harvesting anything from the oceans. Even on land, using greenhouses everywhere would give us vastly more agricultural yield.

We are not using greenhouses everywhere right now, because that's a huge capital investment; and given current food prices, it's generally not worth it. But if push came to shove, we could totally do it. (Just like we _could_ totally get rid of fossil fuels, if we really had to and run everything on wind and solar. It's just not economically viable to do that right now.)

There's lots more techniques you can do to produce more calories. For example fusion power could help a lot to power lots of artificial lighting in vertical farms, and to purify sea water. (And even without fusion power, we could generate lots and lots of power from fission with current technology. It's just unpopular.)

> Maybe we also accept that some limits can't be surpassed, at least not at an acceptable cost.

I guess you would say that the suggestions I made above fall under the second clause of unacceptable costs?

Do you mean economic costs or some kind of ethical or moral or metaphysical costs?

I can see how some people might be queasy about putting fission reactors everywhere. But I don't really see anything against Dutch-style greenhouses apart from economic costs?

[giantg2]

"The carrying capacity of earth is likely hundreds of billions of humans, if we were to set our mind to it."

I've never seen anything that states that. Link? UN and others estimate 8-12 billion. And none of those estimates are accounting for sustainable population. You say 100s of billions, but with what quality of life? With scare resources comes conflict.

"we are barely harvesting anything from the oceans."

Most major fish stocks are down more than 90%. Farm raised means feed and and antibiotics. Sure we can increase stuff like seaweed consumption, but that's not very significant.

"Even on land, using greenhouses everywhere would give us vastly more agricultural yield."

What are those greenhouses going to be made out of? Petroleum based plastics, glass (CO2 for melting), or cellulose/corn plastic (that requires chemicals that aren't environmentally friendly)? Where are we getting the nutrients? We already use a massive amount of petroleum based nitrogen.

"But if push came to shove, we could totally do it."

No, if push came to shove then people would start literally shoving in the form of a war.

"(Just like we _could_ totally get rid of fossil fuels, if we really had to and run everything on wind and solar. It's just not economically viable to do that right now.)"

That's another unsubstantiated claim. Even the EU says they cannot convert fast enough to get off of Russian gas. Let's see a link that says wind and solar are completely feasible to meet current power demands, including the energy storage required.

"I can see how some people might be queasy about putting fission reactors everywhere."

So are you changing from just the wind and solar mentioned earlier to include nuclear?

[eru]

> Most major fish stocks are down more than 90%. Farm raised means feed and and antibiotics. Sure we can increase stuff like seaweed consumption, but that's not very significant.

I agree that hunter-gatherer tactics are beyond their limits.

What makes you think seaweed consumption has to stay insignificant? See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30648873 for slightly more.

> What are those greenhouses going to be made out of? Petroleum based plastics, glass (CO2 for melting), or cellulose/corn plastic (that requires chemicals that aren't environmentally friendly)? Where are we getting the nutrients? We already use a massive amount of petroleum based nitrogen.

I had mostly glass in mind. But whatever works, works. You can make your glass with any energy source, doesn't have to be CO2 producing.

You can take nitrogen out of the air. Also, the atoms that fertilizers are made of don't get destroyed.. so you can recycle them indefinitely (with some effort). We are also sitting on a huge ball of matter.

You can also use substantially less fertilizers and insecticides in a controlled greenhouse environment, perhaps with drip feeding.

I hope we both agree that those approaches take energy to pull off? So the question is whether humanity can get enough sustainable energy.

> Even the EU says they cannot convert fast enough to get off of Russian gas.

We seems to be talking about different time scales here? Getting off Russian gas is something they'd want to do in the next few months or years at most. I'm talking about decades at the least.

(And, the EU could totally get off Russian gas next month. It would 'just' make energy a lot more expensive at least in the short run, and likely put the EU into a severe recession for a while. That's a more painful than the shame of buying from Russia, so they keep buying from Russia.)

> No, if push came to shove then people would start literally shoving in the form of a war.

I don't think so. But for the sake of argument: a few wars here or there don't have much of an influence on carrying capacity. Unless, of course, the wars are bad enough to kill off a substantial fraction of humanity directly or even just destroy the economy badly enough to kill off indirectly.

(That's something we can argue about, if you want to. But we don't need to argue about a few minor wars.)

> So are you changing from just the wind and solar mentioned earlier to include nuclear?

Sorry for mixing examples. I used fission reactors as an example of non-monetary costs that someone might object to.

I suspect we _could_ run everything on wind and solar (especially if you also add solar in orbit via power satellites), if we really had to. But adding nuclear fission (or fusion) to the mix would allow us a higher standard of living.

> I've never seen anything that states that. Link? UN and others estimate 8-12 billion. And none of those estimates are accounting for sustainable population. You say 100s of billions, but with what quality of life? With scare resources comes conflict.

It's more than reasonable to ask for more background information. Sorry, it's a bit hard to Google for this stuff quickly.

So here are just two links that touch on the topics mentioned:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lJJ_QqIVnc

---

Also just to clarify: I am arguing that physically and technically we could support vastly more people on earth. I share your fear that people might blow each other up anyway.

[giantg2]

I see the Stanford link talks about 15 billion, not hundreds of billions. It still does not mention the sustainability at that level.

[midhhhthrow]

There’s no way in the world voters will ever allow you to produce that much housing. There’s already a vast over population on this planet relative to number of shelters

[eru]

I'm not sure about the latter. But I agree that political considerations are important, and I deliberately ignored them and only talked about technical feasibility.

[StanislavPetrov]

>Just to concentrate on food alone: we are barely harvesting anything from the oceans.

Just to cite one of of your statements, the oceans have been decimated with countless species extinct and many more on their way there due to overfishing and habitat destruction. The oceans are also filled with industrial chemicals, plastics and have numerous massive "dead zones" due to nitrogen run off from the huge factory farms we run to sustain our massively overpopulated planet.

The suggestion that the earth isn't overpopulated, let alone the idea that the earth could support "hundreds of billions of people" is beyond absurd. We are losing biodiversity among animals, insects, fish and every other form of non human life due directly to massive overpopulation. Saying this ignores the decimation of our ecosystem and the food web that has left our planet teetering on the brink.

[eru]

You are right that we are past what hunter-gatherer approaches can yield from the ocean. And that we are doing a bad job at protecting the habitat of wild-life.

However, there's vast patches out in the open ocean where almost nothing grows. Mostly because the areas with sunlight (at the top) are not where the minerals are that plants need to grow (mostly the sea floor). See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization for an overview.

If you mind putting fertilizer directly into the open ocean, someone more clever than me can probably work out a scheme for enclosing some water in a giant floating bag, and growing your stuff in there. (Or something much better than this.)

[WalterBright]

> the oceans have been decimated with countless species extinct and many more on their way there due to overfishing

The Tragedy of the Commons. Note that cows and chickens are not endangered species, despite our vast consumption of them.

[MattGaiser]

> The carrying capacity of earth is likely hundreds of billions of humans, if we were to set our mind to it.

At an absolute poverty level in a Warhammer like hive city perhaps.

[eru]

According to Google, the land surface area of earth is about 510 million km^2.

Divided by a trillion people, that gives you 510 m^2 per person.

For comparison, Singapore has 128 m^2 per person.

[vba616]

Americans just don't understand if you say a 55 mph speed limit enables society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

   "From April to June 1982, speed was monitored on New 
   York's Interstate highways, and an 83% noncompliance rate 
   was found despite extreme penalties"

There was a legendary coast-to-coast race in the 70s, defying the national 55 mph limit:

   "Dan Gurney, winner of the 1967 24 hours of Le Mans...won 
   the second Cannonball in a Sunoco blue Ferrari 365 GTB/4 
   Daytona. Gurney said, "At no time did we exceed 175 mph"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Baker_Sea-To-Shinin...

While the races ended due to police crackdowns, people still do the coast to coast run individually and set records:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Run_challenge

   "In May 2020, Arne Toman, Doug Tabbutt, and spotter 
   Dunadel Daryoush set the new cannonball record of 25 
   hours and 39 minutes during the COVID-19 pandemic in a 
   modified 2016 Audi S6 disguised to look like a Ford 
   Taurus police interceptor. Police-evasion modifications 
   included brake light kill-switches, radar detectors, 
   laser diffusers, CB-radio, and a roof-mounted thermal 
   camera. Performance modifications included a trunk- 
   mounted 67-gallon auxiliary fuel cell..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cannonball_Run

A comedy where:

   "JJ McClure, a famous racing driver and team owner 
   (Reynolds), and Victor Prinzi, his chief mechanic and 
   sometime co-driver (DeLuise), drive a Dodge Tradesman 
   ambulance fitted with a NASCAR engine (Hal Needham and 
   Brock Yates used the same vehicle in the actual 1979 
   race)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Can%27t_Drive_55

   "...it took two and a half hours to drive there from 
   Albany. And I was driving from Albany, New York at 2:00 
   in the morning, burnt from all the travel. Cop stopped me 
   for doing 62 on a four lane road when there was no one 
   else in sight. Then the guy gave me a ticket. I was doing 
   62. And he said, 'We give tickets around here for over- 
   60.' and I said, 'I can't drive 55.' I grabbed a paper 
   and a pen..."

Really, (and I just learned this) it says it all that there was a punk album titled as a reaction to "I can't drive 55" called "Double Nickels on the Dime". In Soviet America, the rebels drive 55!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Nickels_on_the_Dime

[eru]

I don't think the commenter you replied to was particularly set on the specific example of a 55 mph speed limit?

In any case, from what you quote here, it seems Americans driving fast occasionally is worthy the stuff of legend? In Germany those speeds would be just another Tuesday.

About half of German Autobahnen famously don't have a speed limit. The recommended speed is 130 km/h (~80 mph).

Of course, petrol costs a lot more in Germany than in the US. In practice, that tends to limit driving much more.

[linmob]

> Of course, petrol costs a lot more in Germany than in the US. In practice, that tends to limit driving much more

Not really. People that drive a lot or like to save money just buy more fuel efficient cars - whenever I read about fuel efficiency of US cars (and bother to convert gallons and miles to units I understand) I am shocked how super inefficient many vehicles on the US market are, especially given that speed limit - likely due to much lower petrol cost.

[eru]

What you describe is true; but petrol costs still limit driving. If driving was cheaper in Germany, more driving would happen. Especially more faster driving.

[vba616]

>I don't think the commenter you replied to was particularly set on the specific example of a 55 mph speed limit?

I was making a more general point too, and I'm sorry if you took my comment too literally.

In Germany it would be another Tuesday, because it would be legal. Driving fast according to the law doesn't represent the same thing, which is connected to that cultural difference I was observing.

[rasz]

>German Autobahn speed limit

Sadly its not that simple :( 'Czech millionaire investigated over alleged 417km/h motorway drive in Germany' https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60301705

[eru]

Yes, you still have to drive safely. That's a lot more nebulous than just looking at velocity numbers.

Another thing to keep in mind, is that if you drive fast enough in Germany, and anything happens, the burden of proof shifts: the (extreme) speeder is presumed guilty of causing the accident until proven innocent.

Fun fact, the incident you linked to happened where I grew up.

[rasz]

But afaik there was no "incident", dude just drove fast on a road with no speed limit and some politicians decided to score few points?

[eru]

Unsafe driving by itself is against the law in Germany. Even if no one was hurt.

You can argue that the law is bad and just be repealed, of course.

(Or like the guy in the article, you can have your lawyer try and argue in court that the law doesn't apply in this case. As a competent lawyer should in a fair trial.)

Not sure any politician was involved in the first place? Though of course politicians might utter opinions on the whole thing. As they should, so that voters can decide who to vote for, if they are in favour or against this law.

[rasz]

You will be happy to learn Cannonball Run movie script (also Smokey and the Bandit 2) was written by Brock Yates, original organizer of Cannonball Run :)

For more about the whole philosophy of the movement I recommend:

The Cannonball Run Countach: Supercar Legend | Full Documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b7erU_DOfE

[kortilla]

That is the zeitgeist. If you think hackers are only selfish then you don’t know anything about the open source world.