Saving Canada's only desert • Hacker News Board

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#31

Post by dogma1138 » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #24

dogma1138 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Humans are not really subjected to natural selection anymore, we need to really screw up the planet for that to happen and by that time it would be too late.

Nature tends to balance itself out, this is slightly harder to do with humans which have the technology to geoengineer their habitats.

But even if it was so it doesn't matter, no person in their right mind would think it's ok for me to die, and for millions or billions of other people to die just because it's the natural order of things.

And for the most part you can't even hide behind it's a "natural process" because humans are geoengineers we build huge concrete cities, we build dams, we divert rivers, we strip whole mountains and dig the decomposing biomass of our "ancestors" and burn it as fuel.

Bears and trees don't do that.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#32

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:05 PM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #24

dogma1138 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

[deleted]

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#33

Post by oneloop » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:06 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #31

oneloop wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Humans are not really subjected to natural selection anymore, we need to really screw up the planet for that to happen and by that time it would be too late. Nature tends to balance itself out, this is slightly harder to do with humans which have the technology to geoengineer their habitats. But even if it was so it doesn't matter, no person in their right mind would think it's ok for me to die, and for millions or b…

Ok, so your argument is to object to my claim that things other than humans can have an impact that leads to loss of lives? I ask this because of your final comment that "bears and trees don't do that".

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#34

Post by pyre » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:09 PM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #27

dogma1138 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your post says that someone must be either "all for deserts" or "all against deserts." It's unclear why people seem to want to force this false dichotomy.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#35

Post by oneloop » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

ommunist wrote: post #29

oneloop wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How can you say there is no environmental concern? If my environment is unlivable (for example because I can't find water, or air etc), isn't that a concern? Look at Beijing and its atrocious air polution, of Flint and its water polution. How is this not a concern?

You keep talking about agencies, or about saving species (the benefit of which can be debatable depending on the species) and aren't really addressing my point. Conditions of the environment exist that will kill you.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#36

Post by dogma1138 » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:13 PM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #27

dogma1138 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't about "pro-desertification" it's about having negative effect on natural habitats that otherwise have no negative impact on human civilization. Also I would like to point out that Okanagan is not a desert it's a dry subhumid tundra, preserving it in it's current state would actually combat desertification.

Israel was trying to fight the creeping dunes for decades, it finally figured out that actually trying to convert them into arable land early own was one of the causes that increase desertification, once it realized that it adjusted its policies and now keeping arid and semi-arid regions and building "natural" barriers that prevent the dunes from creeping is its main environmental policy and so far it's been working as the dunes have been receding by as much as 2 meters per year.

But the general argument isn't for "pro-desertification" it's just against unnecessary environmental change, Okanagan is not a desert it's a pretty good arable valley overall wanting to preserve the natural habitat and not fill it with vineyards isn't really a hard argument to make.

You can say that we can and should screw over every piece of land to get everything we can from it, but most of us can agree that we should preserve what we have left and find ways to better exploit in less destructive means the land we've already taken over and if at all possible try to reverse some of the damage we have caused.

I'm really trying to understand why would you think just stripping and entire habitat and doing pretty much nothing with it is somehow useful just so you could grow a few grapes in Canada.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#37

Post by oneloop » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:15 PM UTC

pyre wrote: post #34

oneloop wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your post says that someone must be either "all for deserts" or "all against deserts." It's unclear why people seem to want to force this false dichotomy.

The dichotomy that I'm pointing out is not that people are "all for deserts" vs "all against deserts", you misunderstood my position. I'm pointing out a false dichotomy which is "all for environmental preservation" vs the position that "all environmental conditions are irrelevant".

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#38

Post by oneloop » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:17 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #36

oneloop wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't about "pro-desertification" it's about having negative effect on natural habitats that otherwise have no negative impact on human civilization. Also I would like to point out that Okanagan is not a desert it's a dry subhumid tundra, preserving it in it's current state would actually combat desertification. Israel was trying to fight the creeping dunes for decades, it finally figured out that actually tryin…

> why would you think just stripping and entire habitat

Again, you completely misunderstood my position. I'm not making a comment on deserts, or this deserts specifically.

I'm making the following comment: "it seems to me that certain people (which I've just learned includes you) seem to believe that any change to any environment is necessarily bad"

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#39

Post by dogma1138 » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:21 PM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #26

dogma1138 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Ho…

I don't know how simpler I can make it.

Desertification can cost us anywhere between 25 to over 50% of the global arable land over the next 50-75 years.

The destruction of natural habitats can also have a negative effect on human lives, if only by denying future generation from being able to visit them. We gain nothing from destroying them in the long run, many of them even if they are deserts can be natural barriers to desertification, and again there is no dichotomy in this case I'm really having hard time trying to uncover any argument you might be attempting to make.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#40

Post by ommunist » Sun, Aug 14, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

oneloop wrote: post #35

ommunist wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How can you say there is no environmental concern? If my environment is unlivable (for example because I can't find water, or air etc), isn't that a concern? Look at Beijing and its atrocious air polution, of Flint and its water polution. How is this not a concern? You keep talking about agencies, or about saving species (the benefit of which can be debatable depending on the species) and aren't really addressing my…

Do you live in Beijing? Flint? So why are you protecting spending on Canadian desert problem, instead of pushing the directing of money to solve acute Flint water quality problem? Ask yourself, be consistent. It is not environmental concern that bothers you. Would Beijing air pollution be of your concern, you'd be volunteering in China R&D putting all your inherited money to find tech solution and establish political framework to limit or stop air pollution. But you dont, wich means you do not have environmental concern. Do not lie to yourself. Your only concern is to live healthy, and support your family where you live. As for 'conditions that will kill you', you know, as a life form with energy flow based on oxydation, I am totally aware of my limited lifespan.