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

91–100 of 204 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#91

Post by flukus »

NLips wrote: post #81
NamTaf wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Granted it's mostly from the outside looking in, but your politics does like a bit better than ours. There seems to be a lot less pressure to hold the party line for one thing, which is very rigid here and there seems to be more local engagement. I'd appreciate someone who has experienced both more closely to correct me though.

Much of the current trouble in Australian politics though is because we have the senate which is proportionally elected. I'd argue this is a good thing overall, but our two major parties (particularly the current one) don't seem to have realised that they have to negotiate policy to make it pass.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#92

Post by KnightOfWords »

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).

We'd be very difficult to wipe out, but our technology falls a long short of being able to construct self-sustaining environments. We rely on having a global supply train at our disposal, not something we'd have access to in the event of a major catastrophe.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#93

Post by flukus »

worldsayshi wrote: post #85
flukus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It could probably heal, it might even do so if we burned every fossil fuel on earth, but the incredibly amount of biodiversity in the reefs would be gone and that will never come back.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#94

Post by scandox »

spodek wrote: post #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 ca…

How will politicians follow voters if voters' own actions cause shrinking economies and fewer jobs? That's not rhetorical. I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest. In addition if one culture does shrink and others simply grow more aggressively then the end result will be same.

What you're talking about is a global consensus to shrink the world population and economy. That isn't something I can personally take hold of. Despite the fact that I do live rather minimally - I don't kid myself that it's changing anything. I just like it that way.

I am often quite sceptical of the "science will save us" approach, but actually it seems more credible than the "change one person at a time" approach.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#95

Post by flukus »

Baeocystin wrote: post #77
good_vibes wrote: post #57

What can we do? Serious question.

Preserve what we can in aquariums around the world so that we'll have reef seed species available as areas become more habitable again. Identify areas that are become more hospitable, and work on establishing reefs there. Expand artificial reef building, to help make up for lost area. Cut carbon emissions, and work on finding ways to sequester what has already been released. No one thing will be the fix, but they all…

> Preserve what we can in aquariums around the world so that we'll have reef seed species available as areas become more habitable again.

Can the worlds aquariums store a fraction of the biodiversity of the reef?

> Expand artificial reef building, to help make up for lost area.

It would take a massive engineering effort to make a dent in the area the Reef covers.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#96

Post by josscrowcroft »

Is improving water quality the decided-upon method for preventing (or even reversing) bleaching of coral reefs?

It seems like that ship has sailed, and now more technological advances are required.

Speaking from zero expertise or experience in marine biology, is it not possible to manufacture massive quantities of synthetic coral that somehow corrects for the changing water quality to enable coral life to flourish?

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#97

Post by tim333 »

josscrowcroft wrote: post #96

Is improving water quality the decided-upon method for preventing (or even reversing) bleaching of coral reefs? It seems like that ship has sailed, and now more technological advances are required. Speaking from zero expertise or experience in marine biology, is it not possible to manufacture massive quantities of synthetic coral that somehow corrects for the changing water quality to enable coral life to flourish?

The problem seems to be the water temperature. It's not easy to fix.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#98

Post by RugnirViking »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #79
vacri wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Contrary to environmental preservation, a gay marriage law costs nothing. So if a strong majority supports it, why don't they enact it to get a free popularity boost?

Because most ministers truly stand for what they believe in to a certain limited extent.

Unfortunately, this is what old, rich, often religious men believe, which is a terrible representation of the actual country.

This is said generally, as I have no specific experience of the situation in Australia

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#99

Post by spodek »

scandox wrote: post #94
spodek wrote: post #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 ca…

How will politicians follow voters if voters' own actions cause shrinking economies and fewer jobs? That's not rhetorical. I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest. In addition if one culture does shrink and others simply grow more aggressively then the end result will be same. What you're talking about is a global consensus to shrink the world population…

> I don't know how it is possible within the current system to back down en-masse in the way you suggest.

The system will change. It's already changing. The question is whether we design and follow the change or nature does it for us. The demise of the world's largest living structure is just the latest in decades of evidence. How much more do we need?

This community is so enthusiastic about going to Mars, universal basic income, and other challenges to current systems. Why so resistant to this change? So enthusiastic about entrepreneurship solving problems except this fundamental belief that economies must grow. Are we so tied to bacon, big houses, and regular trips to Paris? Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years with cities of millions of people without planes, cars, and so on. We don't need them for happiness. Nor do we need to get rid of them. We can live a modern life with modern medicine, modern toys, the internet and so on, we just have to curb it a bit. Well, more than a bit.

> I am often quite sceptical of the "science will save us" approach, but actually it seems more credible than the "change one person at a time" approach.

Hence my point that changing my behavior improved my life and that I'm not special. Simplifying and reducing consumption from our culture's wastefulness isn't sacrifice. You don't have to keep believing it is.

Simplifying and reducing consumption can materially improve your life. Even if it didn't, why not take responsibility for how your actions affect others like you wish past generations did instead of killing the Great Barrier Reef? Why not decouple your happiness from burning fossil fuels and owning more stuff? You don't have to keep waiting for everyone else.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#100

Post by milesrout »

spodek wrote: post #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 ca…

Quite frankly I think blaming it on flying is incredibly offensive.

It's got nothing, at all, to do with cars or flying. They're tiny pollutors compared to industry, specifically the dairy industry, transportation by truck and manufacturing things in China.

Sure we could fly less and drive less but that would do fuck all, and certainly having fewer kids isn't going to solve any problems. Having fewer kids in the west actually just means white people having fewer kids in the west, we're well below replacement rate and are being rapidly replaced by people coming from high birthrate countries like India.

The only thing that will actually solve the problem is sustained government intervention in trucking, dairy and industry, worldwide.

Post reply on HN