Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years • Hacker News Board

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#111

Post by kmonsen » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

eru wrote: post #103

fratlas wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. I had an argument with a friend because I said having more than 3 kids is selfish, and conversely, having fewer kids (or adopting) is selfless and should be praised. They retorted saying it should be part of an individual's freedom to have as many as they wish. I think after a few more generations we may be looking at a world wide child policy (similar to China).

Why? Global population is already forecast to peak pretty soon.

The forecast may or may not happen. Everyone having at most 1-2 kids would help.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#112

Post by kmonsen » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

lprubin wrote: post #75

MikeHolman wrote: post #72

I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

Not having kids may be one of the biggest forms of environmental activism.

I am not sure, I wonder if having kids mean you will care more about the future?

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#113

Post by ak217 » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:37 AM UTC

MikeHolman wrote: post #72

I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

No, sustainability is an empty concept in a future where the status quo is past the point of no return (which we're already in). We will need to move a hell of a lot faster than the Paris Agreement to prevent huge die-offs of people and loss of biodiversity.

We're going to need a Manhattan Project for carbon sequestration.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#114

Post by kmonsen » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:38 AM UTC

fabled_giraffe wrote: post #91

MikeHolman wrote: post #72

I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

I believe in global warming, but I also think a higher or lower temperature Earth with a greater level of CO2 just means that different organisms will thrive. We think that we have damaged the Earth, but the Earth is much, much older than us, and we've barely made a dent if you consider the full lifetime of everything that ever will be. Now- if we had started a global thermonuclear war and eradicated all life on Eart…

You are correct. As long as this does not mean we will hit severe resource scarcity that starts one or several wars that turns so bad that nukes starts flying.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#115

Post by eru » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

kmonsen wrote: post #111

eru wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Global population is already forecast to peak pretty soon.

The forecast may or may not happen. Everyone having at most 1-2 kids would help.

Lots of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, etc opting for zero already.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#116

Post by DougWebb » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:39 AM UTC

erichocean wrote: post #84

MikeHolman wrote: post #72

I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

I'm curious as well. If myself (or someone else) were to develop a zero-emission approach to electricity generation (non-nuclear) that could handle "base load" and did not involve filling up the landscape with solar panels (or their moral equivalent), and did not produce waste, would that even help any more? We globally consume about 20,000 terawatt-hours of electricity right now annually, and in the US, electricity…

Large-scale engineering, the kind we'd need to do large-scale cleaning of the atmosphere, or large-scale high-efficiency hydroponic farming, or building huge earthworks to protect cities from rising sea levels, or anything else we might need to do to deal with global warming, is driven by large-scale energy production. Without energy, we can't do the things we need to do to survive without a lot of pain, suffering, and death. With plentiful energy, we can do the things we know we need to do, and new technological advancements become possible.

I wouldn't rule out nuclear energy. There are risks, but it can produce a lot of energy in a small space, and the waste is much lower volume and easier to contain than chemical energy production. In my opinion, we should've built up our nuclear energy production over the past 30 years so that coal and oil could've been phased out by now, while we developed viable solar energy tech to replace the nuclear tech.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#117

Post by kmonsen » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:40 AM UTC

erichocean wrote: post #84

MikeHolman wrote: post #72

I've been having a bit of an existential crisis about this recently. Is sustainability even possible anymore? We are obviously living beyond the capacity of the earth to cope right now. But is it even possible to sustain this many people (at current standards of living with foreseeable technology)?

I'm curious as well. If myself (or someone else) were to develop a zero-emission approach to electricity generation (non-nuclear) that could handle "base load" and did not involve filling up the landscape with solar panels (or their moral equivalent), and did not produce waste, would that even help any more? We globally consume about 20,000 terawatt-hours of electricity right now annually, and in the US, electricity…

I'd say the less emissions we have to less severe the consequences will be and the the easier it will be to work around the problems in the future. Every tiny reduction buys us more time.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#118

Post by jfoutz » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:43 AM UTC

cconroy wrote: post #85

Forgive my ignorance on this issue but Earth has various feedback mechanisms that forestalls CO2: getting absorbed back into rocks and consumption by flora. Is comparing CO2 levels to 4 mya disingenuous because that is just one variable we are isolating? Are we sure that rising CO2 is producing these effects attributed to climate change and not some complicated combination of factors that is evidenced by Earth histor…

It's just a statistic. There are lots you can look at. This one is interesting specifically because it hasn't happened in 4my. The earth will be fine, life will continue.

The more specialized something is, the more it's at risk for exceeding tolerance. Costal housing is good example. It's built to withstand perhaps 100mph winds, beyond that roofs come off.

The built in mitigation is pretty slow, so there will be perhaps a couple hundred years of rebuilding stuff. Sea walls, levees, more weather resistance.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#119

Post by rosser » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:46 AM UTC

arama471 wrote: post #102

wavefunction wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My response to you is "what right do we have to usher in these changes?" You might argue the "might makes right" perspective that anything within our capability is acceptable and appropriate but I don't agree with that sentiment. I feel that we, as sentient/semi-sapient beings, must be as custodians for this world and all the life within it. We are actually the least among all, until we begin to serve the rest of thi…

He's not saying this is all fine and dandy, hes saying its not an apocalypse, just a global catastrophe from which both the earth and humanity will recover.

The odds are a bit longer on humanity surviving this mess than the planet.

Re: Antarctic CO2 Hit 400 PPM for First Time in 4M Years

#120

Post by nsxwolf » Fri, Jun 17, 2016, 2:47 AM UTC

fratlas wrote: post #82

lprubin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not having kids may be one of the biggest forms of environmental activism.

This. I had an argument with a friend because I said having more than 3 kids is selfish, and conversely, having fewer kids (or adopting) is selfless and should be praised. They retorted saying it should be part of an individual's freedom to have as many as they wish. I think after a few more generations we may be looking at a world wide child policy (similar to China).

Oh come off it hardly anyone has kids anymore. US population growth is very slow and due purely to immigration. Populations in many countries are in free fall. China's one child policy has created a demographic disaster with insufficient girls born.

This Paul Erlich stuff is so 1970s.