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

Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 204 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#31

Post by mistermann »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #28
Red_Tarsius wrote: post #25

This is what keeps me up at night. If we don't find an efficient way to extract CO2 and methane from the atmosphere, I fear that mankind might go extinct.

Mankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred times more adaptable. Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of species. But human extinction is out of the question. We could live in bubbles of air under the ocean huddled around nuclear reactors if we needed to. Roaches couldn't do that (without our help).

Without a massive population of worker bees, can we maintain the level of technological sophistication we've reached?

I suppose governments probably have that fairly well doomsday planned.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#32

Post by rodionos »

> Coral bleaches when the water it’s in is too warm for too long. The coral polyps gets stressed and spit out the algae that live in inside them. Without the colourful algae, the coral flesh becomes transparent, revealing the stark white skeleton beneath.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#33

Post by Arizhel »

mistermann wrote: post #31
erikpukinskis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred times more adaptable. Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of species. But human extinction is out of the question. We could live in bubbles of air under the ocean huddled around nuclear reactors if we needed to. Roaches couldn't do that (without our help).

Without a massive population of worker bees, can we maintain the level of technological sophistication we've reached? I suppose governments probably have that fairly well doomsday planned.

That's exactly right about maintaining this level of technology. Looking around at most people I know and am surrounded by, there's just no way we could keep the technology level we have now without such a large population: most people are just too inept. Kill off 99% and there won't be enough people to even keep the stuff we have working, let alone come up with anything new.

Don't bet on governments having anything planned. That sounds like fantasy; just look at how governments actually behave in the real world: they're inept too.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#34

Post by Red_Tarsius »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #28
Red_Tarsius wrote: post #25

This is what keeps me up at night. If we don't find an efficient way to extract CO2 and methane from the atmosphere, I fear that mankind might go extinct.

Mankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred times more adaptable. Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of species. But human extinction is out of the question. We could live in bubbles of air under the ocean huddled around nuclear reactors if we needed to. Roaches couldn't do that (without our help).

But our scientific knowledge could be lost, maybe forever. The survivors may also forget the concepts of free speech, human rights, the separation of faith and state. What are the chances that we rediscover all of this? Such thoughts require a minimum threshold of resources. But climate change might disrupt our sources of food production.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#35

Post by erikpukinskis »

Red_Tarsius wrote: post #34
erikpukinskis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred times more adaptable. Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of species. But human extinction is out of the question. We could live in bubbles of air under the ocean huddled around nuclear reactors if we needed to. Roaches couldn't do that (without our help).

But our scientific knowledge could be lost, maybe forever. The survivors may also forget the concepts of free speech, human rights, the separation of faith and state. What are the chances that we rediscover all of this? Such thoughts require a minimum threshold of resources. But climate change might disrupt our sources of food production.

A hundred million people with smartphones will be able to preserve that.

Try to come up with a realistic scenario that kills the last 100m humans. I've never seen one. You'd become at least internet famous if you could do it.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#36

Post by vacri »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #35
Red_Tarsius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But our scientific knowledge could be lost, maybe forever. The survivors may also forget the concepts of free speech, human rights, the separation of faith and state. What are the chances that we rediscover all of this? Such thoughts require a minimum threshold of resources. But climate change might disrupt our sources of food production.

A hundred million people with smartphones will be able to preserve that. Try to come up with a realistic scenario that kills the last 100m humans. I've never seen one. You'd become at least internet famous if you could do it.

The humans that survive such an event will not be the smartphone engineers, but the subsistence farmers.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#37

Post by erikpukinskis »

Arizhel wrote: post #33
mistermann wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without a massive population of worker bees, can we maintain the level of technological sophistication we've reached? I suppose governments probably have that fairly well doomsday planned.

That's exactly right about maintaining this level of technology. Looking around at most people I know and am surrounded by, there's just no way we could keep the technology level we have now without such a large population: most people are just too inept. Kill off 99% and there won't be enough people to even keep the stuff we have working, let alone come up with anything new. Don't bet on governments having anything…

You don't need to keep all of it working. Most of it can fall apart. During the decline, important things will retract, move around, be protected. Look at what happened in the Holocaust. European Jewish culture wasn't wiped out. It was dealt a massive blow. Many important things were lost. But the community closed ranks and certain assets were protected too.

This apocalyptic thinking is something you only do if you're so removed from violence that you have to imagine the whole world ending to conceive of it getting to you. People who actually deal with violence know they never get all of us. People are lost. It sucks. But we are resilient too. In a million people, there are always a few who are both smart and lucky and are able to reorganize reality ahead of the wave. That's why there are 6 billion of us. We survive.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#38

Post by vacri »

catmanjan wrote: post #20
H4CK3RM4N wrote: post #4

Sadly I can't remember the last time we had any real action to protect the reef, and our current government is all too willing to put businesses above the environment.

I don't think the average Australian cares, at least not enough for it to influence the way they act/vote. Of course if you ask anyone on the street if they are in favor of protecting the reef they'd say yes, but when they see the price tag they would probably lose interest.

It's not so much about the price tag, but more that there are other issues nearer and dearer to their hearts. A strong majority of Australians want gay marriage laws passed, for example, but the two major parties can dodge the issue because other issues are more important to their voters.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#39

Post by erikpukinskis »

vacri wrote: post #36
erikpukinskis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hundred million people with smartphones will be able to preserve that. Try to come up with a realistic scenario that kills the last 100m humans. I've never seen one. You'd become at least internet famous if you could do it.

The humans that survive such an event will not be the smartphone engineers, but the subsistence farmers.

You don't need smartphone engineers just repair techs. We already have billions of smartphones, millions of which will last a century with proper care. There are palm pilots that still work today.

But also as the world collapses a thousand motivated people could and would relocate a basic computer fab to a safe location. Guaranteed.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#40

Post by intrasight »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #28
Red_Tarsius wrote: post #25

This is what keeps me up at night. If we don't find an efficient way to extract CO2 and methane from the atmosphere, I fear that mankind might go extinct.

Mankind is absurdly resilient. We are like rats or cockroaches but a hundred times more adaptable. Billions of people could die. We might lose 99% of species. But human extinction is out of the question. We could live in bubbles of air under the ocean huddled around nuclear reactors if we needed to. Roaches couldn't do that (without our help).

The topic of "Seveneves" by Neal Stephenson - which I did enjoy.

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Seveneves

Post reply on HN