Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Of course, there are diminishing returns, and hard caps set by physics. As the low-hanging fruit is picked, it will become harder to grow.

But we could expand outside our current planet, initially just for mining for precious resources, but eventually also for colonizing other planets.

The problem with fossil fuel is not that we will run out of it, but that we will make the planet uninhabitable before we can move out. What took millions of years of solar energy hitting the Earth to create, we are burning in centuries or decades. This led to climate change.



If the plan to prevent humanity from collapsing is to go to another (for now not life sustaining) planet instead of taking care of the one we are on right now that can sustain us, something is wrong.

Not saying we should not try, but that should plan Z, not plan B.

Not maxing out our current petri dish should not be controversial.


> Not maxing out our current petri dish should not be controversial.

It should be controversial if it means that the middle class of the developed world have to lower their standards of living, and the global poor will never get the chance to attain the next level of energy consumption per capita fueled by abundant and cheap energy sources like fossil fuels, all the while the elite advocating for such changes hold on to their jets and mansions.


Decreasing population and consumption is going to crash the economy no matter what, and poisining the land we live on is going to make our life terrible. We don't have a choice, billionaire or not, so not planning for it because they exist is like not doing exercice because you wife takes a big alimony: unfair, but unrelated to our survival. Unless you plan to kill the wife.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: