Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Saving Canada's only desert

dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 73 posts

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#21

Post by oneloop »

ommunist wrote: post #18
oneloop wrote: post #12

I see in some places people are trying to stop deserts from turning into something else and in other places people are trying to stop something else from turning into deserts. Are we always trying to stop things from changing, and a posteriori inventing arguments for why that particular change is bad? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all change is equally indifferent either)

This is because social parasites, calling themselves 'environmentalists' want their piece of taxpayers money, no matter how bullshit their ideas are. They have to pay for college for their kids, sort of. And the mortgage. Do not get me wrong, I worked with US EPA, Environment Canada, Japanese JICA and swedish SSNC on a number of projects. I know what I am talking about. Humanity is not geological force. Everything ch…

I have two issues with your comment:

A) You provide no evidence for your major claim (that the people fighting change are doing it for selfish motivations). Neither in general, nor in the case of this specific desert.

B) Even if the _motivations_ for doing something were selfish, it could be that the actual environmental concerns themselves were valid.

Don't get me wrong, the phenomenon that you speak of (social parasites) does exist. But in this case I was hoping for a more environmental (as opposed to sociological) discussion. Just to be clear, you don't disagree that valid environmental concerns could exist, right?

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#22

Post by Sanddancer »

afarrell wrote: post #10
gambiting wrote: post #7

Not really related, but I just wanted to share - there's another desert that almost no one knows about, and it's right in the middle of Europe - in Poland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C5%82%C4%99d%C3%B3w_Desert It's slowly disappearing though.

Why would you want to conserve that? Isn't reverse-desertification a good thing?

Desert areas often have unique plants and animals living in them that would quickly die if competing with faster growing lifeforms. This tends to not be a good thing, because in proper deserts, there are times of the year where there is a lot of rain, but a long period of time where there is little to no rain. So, these invasive species will shoot up in the winter and spring, then dry out and die in the summer and fall when there's no rain to keep the plants alive. The resulting tinderbox is ripe for a fire to burn through and cause problems for everyone.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#23

Post by dogma1138 »

oneloop wrote: post #12

I see in some places people are trying to stop deserts from turning into something else and in other places people are trying to stop something else from turning into deserts. Are we always trying to stop things from changing, and a posteriori inventing arguments for why that particular change is bad? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all change is equally indifferent either)

Those are 2 different things, and usually both are caused by humans.

Desertification is a big problem and it has many human linked causes, large cities change rainfall patterns, deforestation causes soil migration changes the mineral content of the soil and reduces its moisture content and most importantly desertification affects humans as it creeps into arable land increasing the cost of growing crops or in some areas making it almost impossible.

The other problem is the destruction of natural deserts due to buildup of man made structures, agriculture, diversion of water sources, overall climate change (a desert doesn't have to be a "hot" place, many deserts are actually in danger due to rising temperatures which increase rainfall, melt glaciers, or soil locked ice) and many other things.

No one is inventing posteriori arguments and decides arbitrary what is good and what is bad, one environmental change can drastically affect human civilization including costing human lives in the long run, the other is unnecessary destruction or damage to existing natural habitats which do not have much (negative) impact over human civilization or lives but can and should be prevented if not reverted. This is not different than any other preservation effort, you want bears in the wild, doesn't mean you want them living in the woods just by your house, and it also doesn't mean that you would not shoot them if they come and endanger human lives.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#24

Post by oneloop »

dogma1138 wrote: post #23
oneloop wrote: post #12

I see in some places people are trying to stop deserts from turning into something else and in other places people are trying to stop something else from turning into deserts. Are we always trying to stop things from changing, and a posteriori inventing arguments for why that particular change is bad? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all change is equally indifferent either)

Those are 2 different things, and usually both are caused by humans. Desertification is a big problem and it has many human linked causes, large cities change rainfall patterns, deforestation causes soil migration changes the mineral content of the soil and reduces its moisture content and most importantly desertification affects humans as it creeps into arable land increasing the cost of growing crops or in some are…

But much like you say "humans have an impact on what's around them, causing it to change, and eventually that could cause loss of lives", you can also say that for anything at all, can't you? Replace humans with X = bears, trees, anything...

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#25

Post by dogma1138 »

kuschku wrote: post #15
oneloop wrote: post #12

I see in some places people are trying to stop deserts from turning into something else and in other places people are trying to stop something else from turning into deserts. Are we always trying to stop things from changing, and a posteriori inventing arguments for why that particular change is bad? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all change is equally indifferent either)

Well, there are two movements there: One, to conserve current state of nature because it is worth something - see UNESCO Natural Reserves, etc Two, because profits would be threatened by change. (Look at the constant work to keep the island Sylt from moving, for example)

Countries at risk of losing 20-30% or more of their arable land over the next decades are not threatened by reduced profits they are threatened by famine, starvation and huge population shifts.

But this has nothing to do with preservation efforts, if anything preserving dry subhumid and semi-arid natural habitats can prove to be a good barrier to prevent further desertification countries like Israel and Spain have been doing quite a bit of work in those areas.

Wanting to preserve an existing natural environment and habitat to many species is not antithetical to not wanting to lose arable land to needless man caused or at least accelerated desertification.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#26

Post by oneloop »

dogma1138 wrote: post #23
oneloop wrote: post #12

I see in some places people are trying to stop deserts from turning into something else and in other places people are trying to stop something else from turning into deserts. Are we always trying to stop things from changing, and a posteriori inventing arguments for why that particular change is bad? (Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all change is equally indifferent either)

Those are 2 different things, and usually both are caused by humans. Desertification is a big problem and it has many human linked causes, large cities change rainfall patterns, deforestation causes soil migration changes the mineral content of the soil and reduces its moisture content and most importantly desertification affects humans as it creeps into arable land increasing the cost of growing crops or in some are…

> No one is inventing posteriori arguments and decides arbitrary what is good and what is bad, one environmental change can drastically affect human civilization including costing human lives in the long run

You completely nailed it. First you say that no one is inventing posteriori arguments, and then you go on to say that "changes can have effects". But, but non-changes can also cost human lives in the long run. However, you CHOOSE to defend non-changes under the (in my view, irrational) belief that the changes might cause loss of lives, even though you are perfectly content with the consequences of the non-changes, which might also cause loss of lives in the long run. Example: "if we had fewer deserts, we would have more arable land, and so food would be cheaper, and so fewer lives would be lost". So we have one argument that says that changing might cause loss of lives and another one that says that not changing might cause loss of lives. Why do you always pick the non-changing? (when I say "you" in the previous phrase, I'm referring to people who call themselves environmentalists, who always make the argument that change might cause loss of lives, and never the opposite, not you personally).

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#27

Post by oneloop »

dogma1138 wrote: post #25
kuschku wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there are two movements there: One, to conserve current state of nature because it is worth something - see UNESCO Natural Reserves, etc Two, because profits would be threatened by change. (Look at the constant work to keep the island Sylt from moving, for example)

Countries at risk of losing 20-30% or more of their arable land over the next decades are not threatened by reduced profits they are threatened by famine, starvation and huge population shifts. But this has nothing to do with preservation efforts, if anything preserving dry subhumid and semi-arid natural habitats can prove to be a good barrier to prevent further desertification countries like Israel and Spain have be…

I think your arguments against desertification have some merit. But then what's the argument pro desertification (from people who want to keep deserts desert)? Shouldn't you want to NOT preserve deserts, and instead turn them into arable land? It certainly seems more useful to me.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#29

Post by ommunist »

oneloop wrote: post #21
ommunist wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because social parasites, calling themselves 'environmentalists' want their piece of taxpayers money, no matter how bullshit their ideas are. They have to pay for college for their kids, sort of. And the mortgage. Do not get me wrong, I worked with US EPA, Environment Canada, Japanese JICA and swedish SSNC on a number of projects. I know what I am talking about. Humanity is not geological force. Everything ch…

I have two issues with your comment: A) You provide no evidence for your major claim (that the people fighting change are doing it for selfish motivations). Neither in general, nor in the case of this specific desert. B) Even if the _motivations_ for doing something were selfish, it could be that the actual environmental concerns themselves were valid. Don't get me wrong, the phenomenon that you speak of (social para…

there is no such a thing 'environmental concern'. There is only concern for power of some certain individuals. All, I repeat, all environmental protection agencies are political instruments of certain power groups to impose rules on some businesses. This is far wider topic to elaborate it here in detail. When was the last time humanity saved a single species, by restoring its unique habitat and mantaining the balance of energy and materials for ecosystems? For A-B, finance me, I will get you evidence or disapprove myself. But It took me 17 years to understand clearly how these tricks work, and what actually is 'raising environmental awareness'. I myself spent tens of thousands EU taxpayers money to 'save endangered species'. Believe me, after final report NO ONE ever will ask you about the outcome.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#30

Post by jccalhoun »

happyslobro wrote: post #9

Our only desert? There is a small desert in Yukon, as well: Carcross Desert. At least by my definition of a desert: wind blown sand dunes with little patches of hardy shrubs and scrawny trees. Maybe the fact that it formed from a lake bed makes it not a real desert?

According to wikipedia, neither of them are actually deserts. The Carcross Desert is really a sand dune and the Okanagan Desert is really a shrub-steppe.
Post reply on HN