burgessaccount

“Barter” may not be the best term for it, but until the 18th/19th century (varied a lot by location), most people procured the physical goods they needed through their own family’s effort (subsistence); through in-kind payments and mutual exchange (old contracts used to specify that people would be paid in firewood, or candles…); and through favors. The switch from that model to a model of surplus and specialization, where people were paid in cash which could then be exchanged for any number of products, procured from distant places and from strangers, was indeed one of the most dramatic transformations in human history. I think we still don’t appreciate how much it shook up our old systems, and we blame things like divorce rates or child estrangement on newfangled values or bad morals when in fact they are a natural result of structural changes.

I think the article really under-emphasizes the role of capitalism in this. If I need help with my kid, I don’t call my mom, I hire a babysitter. If my mom needs medical help, she won’t call me, she’ll pay a nurse. Goods and services that used to be procured through social bonds are now procured with cash - which creates a feedback loop where people then neglect their social bonds to acquire more cash.

I’m not so sure about blaming social media. I really wish the article had included any sort of concrete data on whether estrangement has actually become more common over time. In my family, my grandfather didn’t talk to his parents because they were alcoholic money-grubbers. My grandma didn’t talk to her dad because he’d left their family to start another family. My aunt didn’t talk to my grandma because my grandma discouraged her from having a career. Reading biographies and history books, it seems like there have always been shitty, “toxic,” or difficult parents, and there have always been disowning, abandonments, and silent treatments. Add to that the fact that our social support structures (babysitting help, end-of-life care) can be paid for in cash, rather than social favors, and you have some pretty normal and understandable dynamics. People barely have time for friends these days. What are the odds that both parents are fun, awesome people you really want to hang out with and spend extra time with? FWIW, I get along great with my parents. But I also recognize that they were better, healthier, more supportive, more present parents than what most of my friends had growing up.

Yeah. I guess my instinct would be this is something platforms have to do while they’re still considered cool? Like Snapchat could have done this seven years ago but couldn't pull it off now?

This feels like when Microsoft pays for TV characters to use Bing instead of Google. It doesn’t make Bing look cooler, it just makes the TV shows look cheap.

You can google all the stats I provided, just like I can google all the no-citation stats you provided.

Yup! I’m a big fan of contraception and options for women. That will probably start to bring the global population down slowly within about a hundred years. But we have less than thirty years to fix the climate problem.

Per-person carbon emissions in the developing world are <1 ton per year. For Europe, China, India its 5-10 tons per year. Which is bad enough. For the United States, it’s TWENTY TONS PER PERSON PER YEAR.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_...

That isn’t because we for some reason have worse power plants or worse ways of making steel. It’s because we eat too much; we drive too much, in cars that are too big; we use too much heat and air-conditioning, in houses that, in spite of what you keep saying, are the largest in the world, and getting bigger every decade (you can google this too). We fly too much, we buy too much, we use too much, we consume more than literally any other people on the planet, and if we don’t stop, we are going to kill everyone, ourselves included.

To put this another way, if every American started living, not even like people in Kenya, but like people in France, that would take 3 gigatons off of global annual emissions. Holy shit.

No, the test is, does a public high school diploma command more pay than no high school diploma? And the answer is a resounding yes. As I have noted, multiple times, in this discourse, I think there is a role for private education, and I think it can do wonderful things. But It is a costly model whose social and economic benefits depend, in part, in exclusivity. If you hadn’t gone to your “worthless” public school, that doesn’t mean you would have suddenly gone to Dalton. It means you would, most likely, either not have gone to high school, or gone into debt to attend a more expensive school. Presumably you think your option was better? That means that public schools are a net good that should exist.

Hmm… can’t point to one specific book, but there are lots of links. You can google “reforestation monoculture” and “reforestation native species.” This article is a great place to start: https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-green-pledges-will-not-cr... It doesn’t get into the granularity of the costs, but highlights that the basic issue is countries are still hoping to make a profit off these “carbon sinks” by planting easily usable timber - aka monoculture - which greatly diminishes the benefits of forests and leaves them vulnerable to blights and other disasters.

Or it’s possible that your public school helped make you into the person your professor thought had potential.

Re: Seattle. I didn’t say “the public school system is perfect and never does anything stupid.” I said, “it is a net-good for the government to provide free education, which people can then improve upon with more expensive private or family options.” Surely that distinction will not be lost on a Caltech grad :)

Also, your public high school got you admitted to Caltech, so… worthless??

Okay, well I had the opposite experience, and found that my public high school had made me over-prepared for Yale, to the point that writing 20 page papers was easy. One individual, anecdotal experience proves nothing. That is why I pointed to the overall statistics on high school graduates. Perhaps some public high schools do not make some people fully ready for Caltech (I wouldn’t expect them to??) but that doesn’t mean they aren’t a net economic good. Public schools set a good floor that the best private schools can expensively surpass; public colleges should set a good floor that the best private colleges expensively surpass; public health care should set a good floor that private health care can expensively surpass, etc. that is a more effective system for balancing quality and cost than the current unchecked subsidies for private systems

Of course rising population is at the heart of this. But unless you’re planning to Thanos our way out of the situation, the people in the Western world need to consume less. Less beef, which is hugely polluting. Less sugar, which is toxic and useless. Less paper products. Less air conditioning. And yes, fewer objects. The average American child owns between 70 and 100 toys. The average American woman owns 100+ items of clothing. The average American spends $16,000 on retail items per year. It is too much; it is more than we need. It all takes energy to manufacture, and to ship, and it all ends up in the trash.

I find that statement pretty goofy. I went to an excellent public school - better than many private schools. The overall expansion of public schools since the 19th century has massively benefitted the American economy. Look at the relative lifetime earnings of high school graduates vs high school dropouts. It’s taxpayer money we’ll spent.

Instead of subsidizing the ridiculously inflated cost of these programs through loans, the government should just open a string of bare-bones universities across the country that offer decent job training for free. No fancy dorms, no deluxe athletics, just a free education. Don’t subsidize an over-expensive private market. Force the private market to compete with dirt cheap. (Same goes for health care, too)

That’s exactly right. I work in film and TV, and there are great, high-paid jobs in those fields… if you win the equivalent of a professional lottery. Unfortunately these MFA programs are (of course) not transparent about that. And, unfortunately, the people who can pay to play tend to already be pretty well off.

Definitely true! I am a huge fan of trees. But the wrong tree in the wrong place is a bad thing. I try to advocate for responsible and thoughtful reforestation - which is, unfortunately, a lot more expensive than people want it to be.

Particulate matter in the air causes precipitation. Spraying large amounts of particulate matter into the sky is likely to drastically change global rainfall patterns - so you might get a ton of rain in the Sahara, where it’s useless, and none at all in the American Midwest. The result could be drastic food shortages and famines. Major volcanic eruptions have been associated with droughts and famines. I think geoengineering on this scale may be necessary, but it is a terrible option and an absolute last resort

I actually think all people in the developed world - rich people of course most of all, but “commoners” too - do need to learn to be content with a lot less. Before the industrial era, the average person in England owned 36 objects. And that’s counting like 1) table 2) bowl 3) cup 4) knife. The way people in America and Europe have been taught to live in the last century - even the lower-middle and working class, let alone the rich - is inherently unsustainable, and can never be sustainable. “Buy less sh*t” should be the first and most powerful front in our fight against climate change, but it isn’t because we are selfish and gluttonous beasts.

Trees actually can provide tremendous cooling dynamics, beyond CO2 absorption. They provide shade at ground level. If every house in the US were surrounded by trees instead of useless lawns, energy use for both heating and cooling would be lower, so you’d get emissions reductions AND carbon absorption.

Calcium carbonate is a better fit - see Gates’s experiments. Likely to still be disastrous, but better than sulfur dioxide

A few other problems - 1) trees take a lot of water to grow, and 2) all the carbon they sequester can go right back into the atmosphere in a forest fire. Some very scrupulous carbon-offset companies (like YC co terraformation!) are careful to plant diverse, native species in a way that rebuilds habitat and fits local water supplies. But there are a huge number of irresponsible tree-planting orgs that plant monoculture trees in places they don’t belong. For instance, eucalyptus trees in California - an invasive species that sucks water out of the ground, then burns up like an oil rag

Yeah, I mean the green new deal was like 75% not climate spending? And a billionaire does not need to tackle the whole problem, just make a dent? My main point was that we actually already have most of the technology needed to fight climate change, we just aren’t deploying it.

I partly agree - yes, individual people spending money is not a long-term solution. But we aren’t even in the stage of needing stable, long-term solutions - we need immediate, drastic, dramatic actions. And there are already strong incentives for carbon capture technology - it’s a big and growing market. The bigger bottleneck is not in capture innovations, but in emissions-reduction action, now, here, this decade. So, yeah, I mean, I get why he wouldn’t personally choose to do it that way, and I guess I’m excited about the prize? But man do I wish he would do more.

I’m very excited about them as a possibility (I think there’s another thread about them on HN?) but so much is unproven. We have no idea how much carbon the sand will absorb, or how fast, or how much it might mess with oceans along the way (it could be a positive because it would help fix ocean acidification, but it is a major mineral and ph modification to a complex system). No solution is as good as emissions reductions

Why doesn’t he just use a few of his billions to build free renewable power plants? Emissions reduction, now, is so much more important than the possibility of carbon reduction in ten or fifteen years

Haha, that does sound deeply annoying. But makes sense given German words. I really don't know which is better, to standardize or personalize...

What is interesting to me is that when adapting the keyboard to other languages, they often didn't attempt to change the layout for the keys used most in those languages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QWERTY#International_variants I guess this makes sense in terms of international standardization, but it also to me seems to be a good argument for "no one thought this through very hard before adapting it."

I think there is a fundamental incentives problem in hiring - employers don't have a strong incentive to treat candidates well, because either they won't need to hire again soon, or they will be trying to hire someone who really wants a job who will forgive them for bad treatment. It's a good argument for moving to a recruiter model - companies have a stronger incentive to treat recruiting companies well if they want to keep having top talent referred to them. (This idea is spelled out in this post from a while back: http://blog.hireart.com/is-it-time-to-centralize-hiring/)

I don't want to speak for ArkyBeagle but I think, when young adults move, they often move for work - so you show up in a city where what you're there to do is work, the people you know are through work, you don't have the balanced social structure of family, friends, and work, so you don't end up spending healthy time relaxing with family and friends, you just... work. That's my guess.