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

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#171

Post by erikpukinskis »

enraged_camel wrote: post #43
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).

I believe the adaptability of humans is greatly exaggerated, mostly thanks to our hubris. We believe we will be able to use our intelligence to figure a way out of pretty much any problem. However, the fact of the matter is that our species has never been through any extinction-level events that would truly test our adaptability. Sure, we can adapt to localized or short-term problems extremely well, but how would we…

What about such an event would cause extinction? 5 billion people die, the rest of us live in warehouses eating indoor-grown food until the sun comes out again.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#172

Post by M_Grey »

Recurecur wrote: post #167
M_Grey wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think that I: 1.) Believe a solution still exists 2.) Believe that Australia of all the small populations on Earth would somehow matter if such a solution existed (no offense Australia, you matter in general) 3.) Believe that "thought" matters at this point. You might as well be telling people marching to the gallows to cheer up, nothing good can come of being all depressed. You might be right, but at lea…

1) No, -I- believe a solution still exists. 2) My comments about Australia addressed the generally fuzzy thinking on this topic. 3) Again, there is no reason to think that the outcome is definite at this point. Clearly, in the worst case, technology should provide a solution. If the gloomiest projections turn out to be incorrect, for which there is mounting evidence, no mitigation may be needed at all.

You believe that a solution exists, although you also believe that there is no need for one, but if there was "technology" would be that solution. Is that about right?

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#173

Post by brookside »

kakarot wrote: post #162
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…

I've never flown on a commercial jet, have no kids, limit my consumption of meat and other products of the corrupt agriculture industry, and I don't own a car because I don't support extortion via insurance and I have a hard time convincing myself it isn't selfish to add more greenhouse gases to the air when I know better, even though "it's just me" and I'm one person. Don't be so quick to judge the members of your c…

First of all, that is amazing. But you are obviously the extreme exception (at least from my observations of other humans in America).

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#174

Post by kakarot »

dingo_bat wrote: post #110
good_vibes wrote: post #57

What can we do? Serious question.

A better question would be: why should we care? I really don't see much value in spending a lot of effort and money into protecting a coral reef.

Are you asking for evidence of environmental utility provided by reef systems? There are plenty and my sister post already mentioned some of them.

But the metric of "does putting in all this money and effort to fix the problem we created give us something back in return?" is absolutely poisonous. It's that selfish "is preserving this environmental habitat that has been around for millions of years worth my time or money?" that allowed us to dig this grave in the first place.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#175

Post by kakarot »

harry8 wrote: post #112

I've been hearing the reef is at death's door for 30 years. When I go, it looks amazing. Still. Maybe this scare campaign is different to all the other ones. Maybe this time as they cry wolf there really is a wolf. Maybe... If so it's a perfect example of the environmental movement destroying their own credibility so that not many in Australia, among those who love the reef, care what they're saying this week. People…

Wow nice anecdotal evidence. You sure just changed my mind! I knew those environmental scientists were full of shit with their rigid studies and methodological collection of samples. There's no way they could have studied the coral reef as thoroughly as you have. Any other rapidly accelerating environmental destruction I should pretend doesn't exist while I'm at it?

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#176

Post by dang »

dvtv75 wrote: post #169
dang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comments were obviously sarcastic, but that doesn't make them ok. It's the venting indignation part that doesn't help. HN is something of an ecosystem in its own right; there's no need to damage one in defence of another. Nothing good comes of it.

Sometimes satire and sarcasm are the best way to draw attention to the absurdity of a given position.

The point isn't that sarcasm is always bad, but that it doesn't make an otherwise bad comment good.

And there is a glut of sarcasm on the internet already, so one can afford to be a bit fussy about quality.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#177

Post by harry8 »

kakarot wrote: post #175
harry8 wrote: post #112

I've been hearing the reef is at death's door for 30 years. When I go, it looks amazing. Still. Maybe this scare campaign is different to all the other ones. Maybe this time as they cry wolf there really is a wolf. Maybe... If so it's a perfect example of the environmental movement destroying their own credibility so that not many in Australia, among those who love the reef, care what they're saying this week. People…

Wow nice anecdotal evidence. You sure just changed my mind! I knew those environmental scientists were full of shit with their rigid studies and methodological collection of samples. There's no way they could have studied the coral reef as thoroughly as you have. Any other rapidly accelerating environmental destruction I should pretend doesn't exist while I'm at it?

I think you missed the point there. This may well be true, and I noted that. I sure believed when I was a teenager that the reef would be gone by 2000, which was what I was reading in the guardian weekely on airmail paper back when that was the thing.

Why don't people care that something as amazing, beautiful, and awesome as the reef is under serious threat? Because we're all aresholes who love Trump/Tony/Maggie, obviously or just sheeple. There is no problem at all with alarmist catastrophism in the conservation movement and obviously no problem with alienating anyone who isn't wildly socialist. Pretend it's not an issue by all means but it won't be terribly helpful to achieve, you know, actual conservation.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#178

Post by NamTaf »

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...

Yes I am. I'm aware the implications of suggesting that PMQ looks like a quality debate compared with AU's Question Time. It's not even a recent development either: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the...

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#179

Post by milesrout »

inopinatus wrote: post #136
milesrout wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, there should be no 'engaging with farmers'. There shouldn't be 'reductions' in pesticide and fertiliser runoffs. Erosion shouldn't be 'managed'. This shouldn't be a conversation. It's been conversation and compromise for far, far too long. Governments should be being firm with farmers, they're incredibly damaging to the environment and it's not even a lucrative industry.

The often wafer-thin margins in the agriculture sector do not invalidate farmer's demands because food security is a most fundamental national security issue, even more so than energy or border control. Conversely, and unfortunately, the Great Barrier Reef is managed by Australian governments basically as a tourist attraction, rather than a unique and fragile national treasure. There is a (locally) famous quote from…

'Food security' is quite irrelevant. Cattle and dairy farming is not a food security issue.

Re: Great Barrier Reef at 'terminal stage'

#180

Post by milesrout »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #156
milesrout wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you're promoting the same fallacy: if something as a whole is bad then you're bad for doing it personally. You can't solve these problems by peer pressuring people into not supporting exploitative systems. Your argument is akin to people saying 'so much for being socialist, you own an iphone, capitalism made your iphone!'. Now I don't use amazon prime to get things that I could just as easily get from local shops…

> No, you're promoting the same fallacy: if something as a whole is bad then you're bad for doing it personally. That's not a fallacy. There's a direct and causal relationship between that "something as a whole" and you doing it personally. No one is saying that you alone are responsible for this systemic issue, but at least cop to your role in it.

I don't like it because it's a cop-out. It's no different from 'oh yeah, you think taxes should be higher? why don't you voluntarily pay more taxes then?'
Post reply on HN