Techno-Capitalists Expect Innovation to Save Us, but It's What Got Us Here
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
theguardian.comResearchstory
calmnegative
Debate
60/100
SustainabilityTechnological InnovationCapitalism
Key topics
Sustainability
Technological Innovation
Capitalism
The article argues that techno-capitalism is not the solution to environmental problems, but rather the cause, and the discussion revolves around the feasibility of alternative solutions and the sincerity of techno-capitalists.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
13m
Peak period
5
0-1h
Avg / period
3
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 20, 2025 at 4:49 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 20, 2025 at 5:02 AM EDT
13m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
5 comments in 0-1h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 20, 2025 at 6:06 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45641448Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 9:06:21 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
A third of food production on this planet done by smallholders, and the easiest way to make sure the other two-thirds doesn't get wasted is to change the distribution system (not with technology). It should not be used to make high-fructose corn syrup in the US. It should not be grown in Arizona to feed cattle in Saudi Arabia. The technology is a sticking plaster over our dumb world, and it is falling off
Then you realize most of our ancestors fled from both of these situations at the first opportunity.
Everything else is either trying to blame "the system" for ideological reasons ("capitalism is bad", "Westerners are bad"), or trying to cope by squeezing quality of life ("don't travel", "don't eat meat", etc).
If anything I'd say the main problem here is that the techno-capitalist are insincere about both and are using them as (half-literal) smoke screens to excuse using more fossil fuels in the immediate future.
But even in that insincere approach it's government action (or very rich philanthropy) that is required to do these things without direct market incentives.