Live data from Hacker News

The Uninhabitable Earth

nymag.com

71–80 of 252 posts

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#71
what about some semi-transcluent 'shield' that would end up lets say in lagrange point, would cover part of earth and would reduce say 2-5% of light? It would be gigantic, but any of these solutions are super-costly.

Benefits - we can relatively easily manipulate it thus managing strength of the dimming; it has clear consequences compared to releasing vast amount of chemistry which might go into overdrive or have some unknown consequences. It seems much better rather than releasing some chemicals into atmosphere and end up in matrix-like situation.

Or build one directly above earth, probably only around equator +- 1000km, easier to repair. It might clutter orbit with mess over time, but still better than boiling alive down here.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#72
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of drastic change should one take? Not having kids, OK, drastic but doable. Cutting out meat, driving less, etc, OK. But what about the rest of the production chain that assumes you're the same as everyone else (whom continues to use and depend on that production chain), which is an ocean of waste compared to what any single person can do? We can individually push the needle very slightly, but it does nothi…

The energy consumption (and therefore carbon emissions) per capita in the west/US comes almost entirely from the feedback loop between single-family-detached housing and the car-or-two it takes to live in that kind of sprawled out lifestyle. Put another way, Transportation and Housing (heating & cooling) are the #1 and #2 sources of carbon emissions for suburban, exurban and rural dwellers. People who simply live in…

Sadly, being "pro-city" is extremely political. Even if we could set aside people's personal preferences, I'm not sure how we start to overcome the ideological gap between urban and rural residents...

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#73
Average person's priorities:

I > My family > My home > My life convenience > My country > Other human beings > Planet Earth.

This is what the average person expects from other people:

Planet Earth > Other human beings > Their country > their family > them

And you wonder why we fail to combat climate change?

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#74
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article specifically addresses and disagrees with this claim.

The article also claims that a rise in kidney disease in El Salvador is related to global warming without offering any evidence whatsoever. Correlation is not causation, right? I think that one specious claim undermines the entire article, quite frankly. El Salvador is a nation with all kinds of social problems including a population that is under-educated (to say the least) so I find it hard to believe that heat is…

If you Google search on the El Salvador claim there seems to be a lot of other articles backing it up, like this one:

http://www.theage.com.au/good-weekend/climate-change-and-kid...

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#75
I wish articles like this that are backed up by tons of research, interviews, etc. would cite sources inline (in a manner similar to Wikipedia). I want to at least skim some of the background research, but I'm reducing to copying and pasting sections of this article into Google.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#76
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry, this is a pure climate alarmist. You can tell by this quote and others: "But no matter how well-informed you are, you are surely not alarmed enough." This person is literally saying we need to be alarmed. I really didn't understand the part where they said methane has 34 times the greenhouse effect as carbon over a period of time and then changes the timeframe to bring the multiplier put to 84 times. To…

Why the downvote? The article is clearly concern trolling. Look, if you are worried about overpopulation, the US isn't your primary area of concern. The US is not overpopulated and probably never will be. Maybe some US cities are, but compared to China, India, and Indonesia, we have no overpopulation problem. I'm not sure that "being alarmed" is a good state of mind to be in--Americans suffer from crisis fatigue as i…

The article has nothing to do with overpopulation

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#77
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got the same feeling. It's a pretty sensational article that leaves out a lot of details but simultaneously has some really good information.

Sensationalism is not a firm basis for serious debate or serious action. If anything is going to save the human race, it is technology, but to hear these breathless alarmists talk, they are anti-technology, anti-progress, and apparently want us all to live stacked up in massive cities with no real quality of life at all. I tend to see this as either an exhibition of control-freak tendencies or simply full-on communis…

Full-communism?

Who is advocating for that?

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#78

A few observations: Trying to scare people into behavior does not work very well. The Catholic Church spent centuries threatening people with eternal hell if they had extra-marital sex, and people still had extra-marital sex. Studies have shown that abstinence only sex education results in more teen pregnancies. Thomas Malthus saw an impending famine and begged people to have fewer children. People did not listen. Wh…

Preliminary but important point: what you call prevention is typically called 'mitigation' by the UNFCCC, NASA, and other environmental orgs, while what you have called mitigation is typically 'adaptation' [1]. I know this is jargon, but if you have conversations with folks in the environmental/climate field it can in the best case provide instant rapport to at least be speaking the same language, and in the worst case, at least prevent serious mis-understandings.

>>The other thing is that people don't really think this is a true emergency. An evidence for this is the quote "What if global warming is wrong and we made the planet better?" If it is a true emergency, we should be doing stuff that make the planet worse if it is wrong. We should be pushing nuclear power - even to the the point of reducing existing safety regulations. A Chernobyl every decade is preferable to global warming. Politically, we should be willing to trade existing environmental regulation for those which reduce CO2.

-Human perception of danger/emergency has, from the evolutionary perspective, been optimized for concrete, near-term events/entities, eg terrorism, explosions, enemies. On the other hand ,it has not prepared us for preparing against abstract, medium to long term adversaries, eg planetary or physics scale changes that threaten civilization, malevolent ETs, malevolent super-intelligences [AIs].. etc etc.

-Even if this weren't true and we didn't have these unfortunate cognitive bias, your argument about broad public wisdom of emergency relies upon a well-informed populace that is familiar with statistics, and the scientific methods. Unfortunately, that is not the case in almost every advanced Representative state on the planet. This broad ignorance renders the ambient public awarness point you have made quite moot.

-Finally, I see the logic behind the 'what if global warming is wrong and the planet gets better' case as analogical to Pascal's wager, or the false postive; what you forgot to mention is the false negative, which is metaphorically relatively similar to the outcome of Pascals (Hell/Earth becomes like Hell).

[1] https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#79

Well, one of the clearest consequences of global warming is that an entire continent becomes habitable as well as a large part of the northern Canada and Russia. Everything I've read about global warming indicates an increase in arable land even when accounting for desertification.

From the article:

"Pollyannaish plant physiologists will point out that the cereal-crop math applies only to those regions already at peak growing temperature, and they are right — theoretically, a warmer climate will make it easier to grow corn in Greenland. But as the pathbreaking work by Rosamond Naylor and David Battisti has shown, the tropics are already too hot to efficiently grow grain, and those places where grain is produced today are already at optimal growing temperature — which means even a small warming will push them down the slope of declining productivity. And you can’t easily move croplands north a few hundred miles, because yields in places like remote Canada and Russia are limited by the quality of soil there; it takes many centuries for the planet to produce optimally fertile dirt."

Post reply on HN