Down voting is a normal thing on HN, even mentioned in the guidelines...

I'd mostly wear it as a badge of honor so long as you were sincere in your message, it mostly means you went against the grain. In other words, you participated and ruffled some feathers...good for you.

You're setting up a strawman argument between continuing to burn fossil fuels and 'degrowth' and keeping the industrializing world in poverty. People are downvoting you because there's a third option which just gets aggressive with renewables like wind and solar because they're the cheapest. The whole idea that there's this inevitable tradeoff between staying on fossil fuels and having to tighten-our-belts isn't relevant any more.

What are you even talking about? I'm talking about focusing on innovation and technical solutions, of which 'renewables like wind and solar' are part of, instead of tightening our belts...

It's wild that you'd get this:

> You're setting up a strawman argument between continuing to burn fossil fuels and 'degrowth' and keeping the industrializing world in poverty.

from what I wrote, when I'm arguing for exactly the opposite.

> Emissions are never going to be cut to net zero. We have billions of people that still need to industrialize. People are not just gonna roll over and turn into cavemen.

You're arguing that "cutting emissions to net zero" means "billions of people not industrializing" and "rolling over and turning into cavemen".

You're getting downvoted by all the people who don't view "net zero" and "growth" as contradictory (like you're asserting they are). And the fact that you just assert like it was as obvious as breathing, that there's a dichotomy there between economic growth and zero emissions means people don't want to bother engaging with you.