Live data from Hacker News

Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

nationalobserver.com

431–440 of 522 posts

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#431

The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources , it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought". CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Winning, getting ahead, being number one, ou…

The planet is going to be just fine, the only thing that we can screw up is our ability to live on it in large numbers - which matters a lot to me for obvious reasons. Unless we're speaking about things that literally are extinction events for us , the larger organism doesn't really care about extremely short term fluctuations; in the scale of a few hundred million years the current climate change (or the temporary e…

People keep saying that. Lots and lots of species will go extinct before we do. And it will be our fault.

Sure, the hunk of rock we call a planet will go on, and life will go on, but claiming we are the only casualty here is profoundly wrong.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assertion is that, as cool as iPhones and flying are, this lifestyle may or may not be sustainable, e.g. regarding the CO2 levels. Leaving aside your silly anger about "hippie bullshit" (really?) and regardless of our history of "competing, losing, getting ahead", what would you propose? Are we just going to brace for pain, and then compete over diminishing ressources? Consider: all of environment protection legi…

It goes beyond bracing for pain. We'd better be bracing for extinction. And our iPhones and supermarkets won't save us, only our ingenuity will and we now have an administration not much interested in that. This does not bode well for us.

Oh please. The "extinction" meme is all around the thread! I challenge you to elaborate the exact mechanism of humanity's extinction. Why on earth should humanity go extinct because of climate change?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, we're not "killing the planet". Humans are organisms like any other. Sure, human populations have spiked from millions to billions in recent millennia, and mean per capita resource utilization has increased dramatically. But that's just what organisms do. So anyway, the planet will be fine. Human civilization may collapse, given the risk of crop failure and war. But even humanity will survive. Edit: Many other…

>At present, the rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than the "base" or historically typical rate of extinction (in terms of the natural evolution of the planet) and also the current rate of extinction is, therefore, 10 to 100 times higher than any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth. From wikipedia, Holocene extinction. By what other metric could you possibly…

Yes, major extinction event. No doubt about it.

But killing off plants? Can you cite something for that?

It seems to me that preventing collapse of human civilization is the thing to focus on. It's what most people will care about, right? And it's far more likely than total global ecosystem collapse. I mean, we may see the first signs within a few years. The "end of all life on this planet" is something that humanity will never get near, because it'll be long gone before it happens.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#434
post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that we are heading to near extinction-level event? As far as I have seen, even the most extreme predictions of climate change consequences don't come close to that. I have seen predictions expecting mass forced migrations, decrease in sustainable population, etc; but unless you're literally expecting the vast majority of the worldwide population to die, it's not an extinction-level event, it's not nea…

"Horrible catastrophe" works, but it doesn't stop there. How are humans and our political and military structures going to react? It is debatable how close we have been, during various past crisis, to an actual large-scale nuclear conflict. I don't think we can deny our raw capability to cause a near-extinction-level with our existing technology (nuclear, biological or otherwise). Our political and military ecosystem…

Do I get this correctly?

* climate change may lead to a "horrible catastrophe" of unknown substance with probability A

* this "horrible catastrophe" may lead to a nuclear war with probability B

* the nuclear war may lead to humanity's extinction with probability C

* you are claiming that A * B * C is very close to 1

If that's right, I call bullshit. There is a ton of potential triggers for nuclear war besides climate change, we didn't have one yet and I can't see why climate change should be the biggest concern in this regard. Moreover, nuclear war is hardly an existential threat to humanity and may even cool the planet a bit.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it does. Many organization that provide contraception also provide abortion services, and therefore are ineligible for funding.

Though if you really wanted, you could provide contraception without providing abortion services (it's a policy that these two are often combined, not logistical or economic or any other necessity.)

You have to avoid ever mentioning abortion as an option, not just avoid providing them yourselves. There are tons of places that only offer contraception which are affected by this rule. There are organisations which don't even offer medical services but which support the availability of abortion, and they also lose funding under this rule.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Scale relative to what, or when? I mean, yeah, we are certainly 'off the scale' for supermarkets, iPhones and planes compared to, say, the ancient Romans. But in fairness, they've got us well and truly beat on the ig…

Yet the reality is self-actualisation / spirituality are as out of reach for many now as they were years ago when we were 'poorer'.

Well then I guess I'm a bit lost. What exactly is being suggested here?

We seem to have established that, for 'many', there's no relationship between material wealth and spirituality (although the people replying to you appear to disagree, but I'm going with your notion). And I think the original post was suggesting that climate change is a consequence of a lack of spirituality.

If we take all the above as true, wouldn't this all logically suggest:

(a) We're doomed regardless of how many solar panels / wind farms we build, because the root cause (lack of spirituality) remains unaddressed; and

(b) To avoid being doomed, we should devote the bulk of our finite efforts and resources towards general public achievement of spiritual enlightenment? And only after this has been achieved, only then might we be able to stave of climate change?

Or is something else being suggested?

Just my opinion, but I'm not so certain that there's either (a) no relationship between 'spirituality' and material circumstances, or (b) that there's an inverse relationship, as is suggested below (i.e. poor people are more spiritual). I can't see how either of these propositions are self-evidently true. The latter is a nice thought, I guess ("oh, he said the meek! oh isn't that nice!"). It's a similar idea to that of the 'noble savage' I suppose.

Going with your notion (i.e. no relationship): I think catastrophic climate change would significantly diminish material resources, in practically every respect. Even 'empty space' will be in shorter supply, due to mass migrations towards relatively unaffected geographies. IMHO, these sorts of 'material privations' (and I don't mean your voluntary weekend fast, here) would bring out the worst, most desperate behaviour in most people, particularly if experienced en masse. I don't think these would be people freed from petty material concerns, and therefore able to pursue 'spirituality'. I suspect they'll instead be people doing whatever it is they need to do to increase the chances of their family's survival.

IMHO, the social dislocation caused by catastrophic climate change is one of the few things I could see leading to a violent breakdown of social order, or to the next global scale war. I tend to think these sorts of adversities would lead one away from spiritual enlightenment (unless dying counts as spiritual enlightenment).

Would you contend that people were generally more 'spiritual' during the Great Depression? Were they more spiritually enlightened during the world war that followed? Or does one thing have nothing to do with the other?

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#437
post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "the planet" = "our species" is a big part of the problem, no?

Not sure. If that somehow poetically translates into the reason it is so easy for us to demonize science with corrupted politics... Then you get a "100% yes" from me. :)

Yeah, I think that we agree :)

Science: "Climate change will destroy human civilization."

Big oil: "They lie. No problem. Anyway, God gave it all to us."

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#438
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US global gag rule, which has been in effect under every Republican president for decades, blocks foreign aid funding to any organization that mentions abortion. I think it was estimated to cut aid spending by $9 billion when Trump re-introduced it this year (especially as he expanded it from the old policy of health-related organisations to all organisations).

I had no idea such a gag rule existed. Does this affect distribution of contraceptives in some twisted way as well?

It affects the distribution of contraceptives very directly. It means that no organisation that ever talks about abortion as an option for women can receive American funding. Doesn't matter if their primary work is providing contraception or providing childcare, if you tell women they could get an abortion, or you lobby a politician to make abortion more available/safer, you lose funding. https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/mexico-city-policy-global...

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>At present, the rate of extinction of species is estimated at 100 to 1,000 times higher than the "base" or historically typical rate of extinction (in terms of the natural evolution of the planet) and also the current rate of extinction is, therefore, 10 to 100 times higher than any of the previous mass extinctions in the history of Earth. From wikipedia, Holocene extinction. By what other metric could you possibly…

>Push as much co2 as possible into the air as quickly as possible to change global conditions enough to kill all plants at the same time This makes no sense. How exactly an abundance of CO2 will "kill all plants" given that they are thriving on it? Let's say temperature rises further, like +10C rise. Desertification may kill some plants, sure. In the meantime, huge swaths of Siberia and Canada will stop being permafr…

As quickly as possible is the key. In the past any changes in temperature were much more gradual.

Re: Atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate upwards

#440

The message I"m getting is not that I have to prepare for something or change energy sources , it's that "our lifestyle is killing the planet much faster than we thought". CO2 levels is just one of a myriad of indicators that are off the scale now. By lifestyle I mean supermarkets and restaurants and iPhones and planes ... all the stuff that we're so proud of as a society. Winning, getting ahead, being number one, ou…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN