Live data from Hacker News

Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

theguardian.com

81–90 of 204 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#81
post #73
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Australia for 10 years and got a chance to visit great barrier reef multiple times. It's what started my love for water. Its not the same now. If by the time I have kids and they don't get to have the experience of lush underwater life, I will definitely believe we humans are cancer for the planet. Australia is a rich and educated country. If they can't fix the mess they created I don't have much hopes for…

We are a rich and educated country, however our politics is one that promotes extreme toxicity in the major parties towards any 'difficult' issues. Look at how non-committal MPs are about so many issues when interviewed. Never mind how much of a joke parliament is, especially during question time, where it's more important to score petty points against the other side than debate policy. You just have to look at the U…

Are you saying that e.g. Prime Minister's questions is an example of good and useful debate?

If so, then I am so very sorry for Aussies...

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#82

Although I've never seen the Great Barrier Reef, I was recently in Belize and snorkeled around its Barrier Reef. It was painfully obvious that the reefs were extensively bleached(though still quite beautiful). It's quite shocking to think that 30 years ago the reefs looked completely different from now and in another 30 years may not even be around. I hope that in the future we won't be reduced to having to point to…

Sadly at the speed this is going they won't last 30 more years. We've already reached their limit point, and when they go the entire eco-system they host are going to die with them.

And then the greet barrier reef will be a memory.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#85
post #74

What can we do? Serious question.

Immediately halt all carbon emissions in the world, that might be enough to save it. Reality is the time to act was 20 years (or more) ago.

As long as at least some coral survive it's not time to give up. If we can halt carbon emissions and turn our industrial complex towards proper sustainability the earth will probably heal. Perhaps it will take a thousand years for it to recover but as long as we reach sustainability that doesn't really matter.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#86

What can we do? Serious question.

There's a guy in Florida who is growing the florida coral reef at a much higher rate than usual.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/scientists-try-regrow-dying-c...

https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/423696/a-coral-reef-...

Are you referring to this guy?

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#87
post #49
post #47

I grew up on the coast of the Great Barrier Reef in North Queensland and I can say that the current state of the reef is almost unrecognisable to what it was 20-odd years ago. While a large part of this damage has been caused by rising sea temperatures, another large component is due to the run-off from agriculture, refineries and mining. The latter being a directly contributed by the local population. The region is…

The QLD government is doing some good work on water quality - particularly engaging with farmers, reducing pesticide and fertiliser runoffs, and reducing erosion. But it's all underfunded and therefore not coordinated or widespread enough. The federal government has ignored these issues for decades while we've been burning coal for power and digging it up and exporting it to the biggest polluters. It's disgusting, re…

It would be good if it were possible to directly crowdfund some of this research, since they are obviously starved for cash.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#88
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'r…

Little bit off-topic here, but there's almost 8 billion of us now. 7 billion was past a while ago and exponential growth continues.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#89
Many posts here about how sad and disgusted people are. Not much about people taking personal responsibility.

What do people think the carrying capacity of the planet means? Sustaining more humans means sacrificing other life that competes for our resources. It means pollution rising until it doesn't quite kill us but is well above the levels of a pristine, clean environment.

Nobody wants to live near the carrying capacity because approaching it means sacrificing anything that doesn't keep us alive.

Every round trip flight across the country you take contributes almost one year's allotment from the Paris agreement for one person -- https://co2.myclimate.org/en/portfolios?calculation_id=71970.... Flying first class and you're well over it. Eating meat contributes a lot too. Having more kids in western cultures contributes significantly.

Who among us, reading this, hasn't gone over their annual limit in just a few hours of flying, not to mention their regular life otherwise? How many have blown past their Paris limits already this year?

Some would say the damage was done by past generations. Okay, well what beautiful part of nature will our behavior destroy years from now? People keep posting to HN that since we can't change that a lot will happen, it doesn't matter any more, we should just enjoy ourselves, but there are different degrees of destruction.

Alternatively, we can fly less, drive less, eat much less meat, and have fewer kids. We don't need to wait for legislation. In fact, it's the fastest way to get legislation, since politicians follow voters.

In my experience, acting on all those things improved my life tremendously (including not flying for a year+ http://www.inc.com/joshua-spodek/365-days-without-flying.htm...), more than almost anything else. I'm more fit, enjoy my neighborhood and neighbors, and spend less money and there's nothing special about me.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#90
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being on the right side of a knifes edge event (Toba example) doesn't prove we're resilient, it shows how susceptible we are to forces beyond our control, just as retrospectively guessing a coin toss doesn't mean we can predict the future, that's the anthropic principal at work. The second example shows how susceptible Civilization is. For more examples look at our closest relatives which survived on earth longer tha…

Can you please provide a credible example for such an event. Regarding your first example, Toba: we have no record of what may or may not have happened to a small population of Neanderthals 75.000 years ago, and your source itself states "Both the link and global winter theories are highly controversial". Your second example marks the decline of a civilization, but does not even come close to what could be described…

For Toba, I wouldn't expect it to be definitively settled one way or another for a long time, if ever. Volcanology, geology and genetics are very young fields of study, particularly in developing nations that are home to much of the evidence. The theory is that it caused a population bottleneck in humans though, not Neanderthals (who probably had a pretty hard time as well) and that humans nearly fell below the genetic diversity needed to survive.

It's the only example that I know of because humans have only been around for the blink of an eye, Toba maybe be the worst that nature has thrown at us, which is a fraction of what it's capable of.

There are some other more documented examples the merely bought down civilizations (or helped anyway), like the Justinian Famine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%...) thought to be caused by a volcanic eruption.

> Your second example marks the decline of a civilization, but does not even come close to what could be described as an "extinction".

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, though I would say they are one and the same thing in the long term. For humanity to survive and spread beyond our planet we need civilization and we've used up so many natural resources that I'm not sure we could rebuild one to match what we have today without them.

Post reply on HN