> instead of spending their billions to fight climate change

Does Tesla count or are we still calling Elon a scammer and fraud because he's not producing electric cars fast enough?

"not producing electric cars fast enough" Oh, you mean literally lying about how many cars he is producing, fabricating timelines when he knows they are 100% impossible, libel-ing people, lying about self driving and giving a dangerous name (autopilot) to his driver assist, going on insane witchunts, and taking all the credit for other peoples work (e.g. martin eberhard)? All while producing crap tons of scrap and rework in his factory that literally invalidates the thesis that the cars are somehow environmentally friendly? Cars that are great at accelerating and suck at stopping, and thus have a much higher fatality rate than other luxury vehicles (on par with sports cars)? Yep pretty sure we're still calling elon a scammer and a fraud.

I think the two things we should be doing are 1. Working on getting off the planet and 2. Working to save the planet. Elon is working on both. I'm a believer.

> Pretty saddening to read- instead of spending their billions to fight climate change

A pretty good way to fight climate change would be to mostly stop breeding, because fewer people means less energy consumption and thus less climate change.

Unfortunately the people who should consider breeding less will never consider this. And anyone on HN who is conscientious enough to actually stop reproducing because of this post will probably cause a net loss for society by doing so.

AFAIK, there's no scientific basis for this argument, it strikes me as tone deaf and possibly racist or classist. While there is some basis on which to argue that genes may influence intelligence, it is certainly not the easiest or most direct way to influence intelligence: education, economic and social stability, general health, etc.

If everyone on HN stopped having children, I am sure the world would get along just fine.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2016/09/16/no-r...

From your own source "While maybe half of our intelligence as we currently define and measure it is inherited."

So the author admits that probably half of intelligence is inherited. Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics.

It sounds like you are arguing that manipulating genetics is an easier way to encourage intelligence then education and environment. Is that really what you are trying to say?

Because that sounds ridiculous to me.

Really? Care to point out which part of "Seems obvious then that education, economic status, environment etc. while contributing are substantially less important that genetics" implies that I think manipulating genes is easier than changing education or environment?

The part where you claim that the easiest part to manipulate is the most important contributor to intelligence.

Considering I never even used the word manipulate your attempt at putting words in my mouth is even more see through than the previous reply's.

Yes, that's the quote that led me to my conclusion. ;-)

Which part? You seem to be having a massive failure of reading comprehension and I would love to help improve your ability to read.

We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> fewer people means less energy consumption

Is that how markets work?

That's a pretty anti-capitalist attitude: who would buy all of the apps and other consumer durables that would enable companies to keep reaping quarter on quarter growth?

It also presumes that climate change is caused by the number of people on the planet, which is demonstrably untrue. If we're willing to contemplate anti-capitalist (and thus anti-corporate) solutions, why not just fix the problem at it's source and make it illegal to burn fossil fuels, etc.? I think the idea that people need to "stop breeding" is somehow easier is somewhat stomach-turning.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-compa...

It's kinda fun to have backup plan upon backup plan. I've definitely gone down this rabbit hole with online account security; was considering buying a safe to store a backup yubikey & some paper passwords, but then I had to consider how I might store the safe combo if I forgot it, and so on - your contingency planning creates more surface area from which additional problems grow.

I suspect that many of them are putting resources into both fighting it and escaping it. At least that's what I would do.