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

51–60 of 73 posts

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#51

Post by the_fury »

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…

> For A-B, finance me, I will get you evidence or disapprove myself

Are you really saying that you need financing to get evidence to back up your original claims?

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#52

Post by oneloop »

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)

Follow up to the above comment. After making this comment two users (dogma1138 and ommunist) showed up that reinforce my point.

On one side, according to dogma1138 (it appears from his comments) that any change to the environment is inherently bad. Talk about change and he will quickly point out the loss of lives. I asked several times whether there were any exceptions from this and got no compromise. On the other side, according to ommunist, any concerns that anyone can have about the environment are necessarily misconceptions stemming from corporate propagandist shills, and no compromise here either.

This topic is so polarised that it's impossible to have a productive discussion.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#53

Post by dogma1138 »

oneloop wrote: post #50
dogma1138 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends, if it's the last liveable place on the planet and our species survival depends on it it's a no brainer. If it's to make some grapes so Canada can make more shitty wine while causing irreversible damage to the local wildlife and causing even worse desertification and other environmental changes in the future then no. There is no black and white, yes and no, good or bad, I don't understand why you are conti…

The question of "are there any circumstances under which ..." is dichotomy. The circumstances either can conceivably exist, or it cannot. And I still haven't gotten an answer from you, so I guess there's no point continuing. No, I'm not trolling.

It's an utterly pointless question, it's like asking can something happen that you could never predict? this is pretty quasi rhetorical question which has absolutely no value or argument behind it.

Yes by not destroying some natural habitat and causing the white tailed ferret to go extinct humans might bring their own extinction because in 3048 they are going to become the natural carriers of the Z virus bringing the oh so anticipated zombie apocalypse.

But meantime in the real world from what we know so far from both research and experience negatively affecting the environment causes negative effects on the human civilization.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#54

Post by wodenokoto »

pipio21 wrote: post #11

There is the opposite problem, which for me is way more serious: The desert growing. In Spain it grows each year in the South East. But Spain's desert is small compared to Sahara's, that is as big as Europe. Its dunes are as big as buildings, with pictures you can't really grasp the enormity of this dessert. When Sahara grows each year it literally engulfs entire villages. In Egypt and center of Africa there are citi…

Currently a wall of forest is being planned to stop the desertification of southern Africa. The accompanying satellite photo on the wikipedia article is quite telling of the enormous size of the desert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Green_Wall

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#56

Post by ommunist »

oneloop wrote: post #48
ommunist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negative consequences for what species? Negative to humans - better for rats and cockroaches. Honestly, from biological point of view Homo sapiens and Rattus norvegica are just different species, but it seems your views are quite biased to favour only one, is it not? @oneloop. HN does not techically provide me reply link, so I reply here - Sure thing. I told you earlier, I am based on oxydation as a life form. Remove…

For humans. So you do agree that some conditions of the environment will have negative consequences for humans, or don't you?

Sure thing. I told you earlier, I am based on oxydation as a life form. Remove oxygen - I die. And speaking of desert - me and you will die there too, being left in the middle of it. So what?

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#57

Post by ommunist »

the_fury wrote: post #51
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…

> For A-B, finance me, I will get you evidence or disapprove myself Are you really saying that you need financing to get evidence to back up your original claims?

Sure thing. How else can I get into stakeholders bio and discover their real relationship, not PR they publish. Would Canada really need to increase volume of their desert ecosystem, it could employ Rio Tinto to make one.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#58

Post by DennisP »

pipio21 wrote: post #11

There is the opposite problem, which for me is way more serious: The desert growing. In Spain it grows each year in the South East. But Spain's desert is small compared to Sahara's, that is as big as Europe. Its dunes are as big as buildings, with pictures you can't really grasp the enormity of this dessert. When Sahara grows each year it literally engulfs entire villages. In Egypt and center of Africa there are citi…

These are different sorts of desert. Canada's is a rare and fragile ecosystem, not a wasteland of lifeless dunes like the Sahara.

Re: Saving Canada's only desert

#59

Post by ommunist »

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…

Is this claim based on any evidence or research? "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."

I say - that is bullshit. Belarus lost more than 20% of arable land and around 30% of forest land after Chernobyl accident in 1986. It suffered literal hell in social sphere after the USSR was ruined by its elites in 1991. But just 20 years later, by imposing special 17% tax on all businesses that was used to recover arable lands and forest lands from radionuclide contamination, balanced social policy and successful research in agriculture, it is doing just fine!

It is HOW you deal with loss of arable land that matters. 2008 - Syria. They stupidly dug deeper wells until exhausting their precious ground waters to nothing. Result - 2 mln former farmers filled favelas of large Syrian cities. At the same time, same area, same problem - Israel invested into desalination tech and plants and successfully kept its agriculture running.

It is not lost per se that causes famine and social shifts, it is right or wrong policy of the society that does it. We are humans - we can change things. But not 'saving deserts' or 'save beavers'. We are damn good at saving ourselves when we are together. Like Jews.

Post reply on HN