
Have You Hugged a Concrete Pillar Today? - ekm2
http://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Making-the-Modern-World
======
staunch
> " _China used as much concrete in just three years as United States in one
> century "_

He wants you to think he's comparing the last 100 years. In reality he's
comparing two different time periods because U.S. acceleration ruins the wow
factor.

> " _Chinese now consume more Guccis and Bulgaris and Louis Vuittons than the
> rest of the world combined._ "

He wants you to think Chinese consumers have a lot of buying power. They
don't. They just happen to like those specific brands. Even Japan spends more
than the U.S. on those _specific_ brands, with half the population.

~~~
r0h1n
> _He wants you to think he 's comparing the last 100 years. In reality he's
> comparing two different time periods because U.S. acceleration ruins the wow
> factor._

That's an amazingly pedantic and petulant response to what appeared like a
perfectly valid comparison. The US economy became the world's largest one some
time in the 1920's, which means at least 70 of the 100 years in the 20th
century was when the US was the world's largest economy and growing. What's
wrong in comparing that to just 3 years of China's growth, a country which is
still a smaller economy than the US mind you? That's still wow factor enough
for a lot of people, especially non-Americans I guess.

> _He wants you to think Chinese consumers have a lot of buying power. They
> don 't. They just happen to like those specific brands._

I'm surprised you think China isn't a major luxury market. Across product
categories from handbags to watches to cars, China is absolutely the #1 focus
market for most brands. In fact measured by nationality, the Chinese are the
world's largest luxury consumers and also the fastest growing. [1]

[1] [http://www.economist.com/news/business/21579015-life-
getting...](http://www.economist.com/news/business/21579015-life-getting-
harder-purveyors-luxury-china-growth-prospects-are-still)

~~~
adamtj
It's not pedantic or petulant. The infographic is misleading, though not
dramatically so.

It looks suspicious to compare the US until the year 2000 and China only
starting in 2011. There's a gap of a decade. If you assume that US use is
likely increasing (a decent assumption), then the statistic could be
misleading.

It turns out that the US has used about a gigaton in just the last decade.
That's a bit more than twice as fast as its average during the 20th century.

During the past 3 years, China used cement about 29 times faster than the US.
If you aren't careful, you might think the infographic suggests that number is
48x.

[http://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-
cem...](http://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-cement-in-
the-us/)

China has a lot of people and a lot of catching up to do. Even the misleading
number isn't that surprising to me. It turns out concrete lasts a while, and
US usage has been spread over a century. In the long run, the integral matters
more than today's derivative.

~~~
vacri
Gates' point is that concrete usage is accelerating, not that China was
funkier than the US. It's hardly 'suspicious', given that context.

------
chrismealy
_The car I drive to work is made of around 2,600 pounds of steel, 800 pounds
of plastic, and 400 pounds of light metal alloys. The trip from my house to
the office is roughly four miles long, all surface streets, which means I
travel over some 15,000 tons of concrete each morning._

Bill should get a bike.

~~~
benjiweber
The 4 mile trip in the article would be about 12 minutes by bicycle (once you
get fit). It would be less than an hour simply walking briskly.

It's difficult to understand why people drive such tiny distances. I ride
close to 20 miles each way to work and it's still much faster than driving and
slightly faster than the train. I also get less sweaty than people using the
trains due to sensible clothing. It also means I don't need to use the gym and
can eat what I want (I burn about 3500 kcal/day)

~~~
vacri
An hour's walk each way = 2 hours out of your day commuting. For a workaholic
billionaire with a prediliction for charity, that's quite a waste of time.

Similarly with riding, it's not just the ride. A car is easy if you've got a
parking spot at both ends. Hop in, hop out. Commuting by biking (usually)
requires you to change clothing, which really should be included in your
commute time.

And some people just enjoy driving, like some people enjoy walking or riding.
I haven't met the person who likes being crammed into a sweaty train-crowd
yet, though :)

------
syncerr
From the article:

> China used more cement in the last three years than the U.S. used in the
> entire 20th century.

It seemed strange to exclude years from the 21st century.

From 2011 to 2013, China consumed roughly 28 times that of the U.S.

From 2002 to 2013, China consumed roughly 15 times that of the U.S.

____

[http://www.ficem.org/boletines/ct-2013/presentaciones2013/1-...](http://www.ficem.org/boletines/ct-2013/presentaciones2013/1-EXPERTOS/2_THOMAS-
ARMSTRONG/ICR-FICEM-Presentation-Handout-30Aug13.pdf)

~~~
devindotcom
Why is it strange? "The 20th century" is a complete and relatable concept for
many people, easy to comprehend as a unit.

~~~
syncerr
It usually makes sense to vary a single dimension when comparing metrics; not
two.

------
photoGrant
Funny title, I created an award-winning photo of a concrete pillar saying 'hug
me' a good 6-7 years ago. Here's the image!
[http://imgur.com/4VJwXRg](http://imgur.com/4VJwXRg)

~~~
return0
That's what i expected; i thought it was world concrete hugging day or
something.

------
tdaltonc
> Smil introduces a surprising and counterintuitive idea he calls relative
> dematerialization. As innovation lets us make a given product more
> efficiently, with fewer materials or energy, prices go down and consumption
> goes up.

This is called Jevons Paradox; or at least it used to be. Economists have a
good handle on this idea now so we don't call it a paradox anymore.

~~~
GFischer
It has a Wikipedia page :)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

Edit: it was pointed out earlier further downthread

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7894415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7894415)

------
oska
> After reviewing the trends, Smil introduces a surprising and
> counterintuitive idea he calls relative dematerialization. As innovation
> lets us make a given product more efficiently, with fewer materials or
> energy, prices go down and consumption goes up.

Looks like Gates isn't very familiar with the ideas of Buckminster Fuller
then. Bucky identified _ephemeralization_ as a key technological trend over 70
years ago. [1]

[1] R. Buckminster Fuller, _Nine Chains to the Moon_ , Anchor Books [1938]
1971 pp. 252–59.

~~~
VintageCool
The English economist William Stanley Jevons made the same observation in
1865.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox)

~~~
oska
Thank you for the link. However, at least in the wikipedia article, it seems
to be more a discussion of fuel use (the original observation was about coal)
rather than material use. Fuels are used up; materials used to build things
can be recycled. From my recollection of Buckminster's discussion of
ephemeralization, he restricted it to only material use. And Gates' discussion
in the article is again only about material use.

I think it's quite conceivable that a world with a stable population could
rely almost entirely on recycling of at least some materials. In Brazil, they
already recycle 98% of aluminium can production.

------
ugk
The construction/real estate bubble in China is not long for this world. China
might have used a lot of a commodity/product, but we should be careful in
believing that is an equivalent 1:1 economic comparison.

------
kristianp
Previous discussion (with cleaner url too):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7887266](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7887266)

~~~
dang
Oddly, that one set off the voting ring detector. It was a false positive.
(Edit: or at least I believe it was. Hard to know for sure.)

We cleaned the url.

------
latch
I'm shocked that Bill Gates drinks 3-4 Diet Cokes a day. Probably harder for
me to understand than seeing educated people smoke (since, at least with
smoking, there's a chemical dependency at play)

~~~
rmrfrmrf
Why, because aspartame is a \ _gasp\_ _chemical_? Yes, please disregard the
numerous studies that all find aspartame to be completely safe for human
consumption. Gates probably drinks Diet Coke for the same reason that many
educated people do: they're actually able to read and understand primary
sources. Aspartame conspiracy theorists are just as woefully uninformed as
anti-vaxxers.

~~~
gdewilde
Studies that say something is safe are irrelevant, we only care about the
studies that say something is not safe and their follow ups.

~~~
kiba
That leads to confirmation bias, which is a bad thing. You want both positive
and negative results.

~~~
gdewilde
I can totally see it now!

After the study shows us that something is safe the dead people hop out of the
grave.

Imagine their surprice!

 _Oh, I thought I died but then the new research came in._

------
xname
1901~2000? Does this comparison make sense?

~~~
cushychicken
Totally. The Interstate Highway Act alone was just one of the huge projects
using tons and tons and tons of concrete in the US - part of why the figure's
so mindboggling, really.

------
genieyclo
Funny that gatesnotes.com is using Apple's 'Share' icon and not the Windows
version…

