Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Uninhabitable Earth

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 252 posts

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#101

Post by Daishiman »

joloka wrote: post #47
nickthemagicman wrote: post #25

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…

You're applying your feelings where there is well-informed scientific consensus on the matter. It's not sensationalism when the science backs it up. It's too bad you don't like it, but nobody really has anything to indicate the contrary.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#102

Post by Brakenshire »

dustinmoris wrote: post #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?

Because a lot of people seem to think that doing the best for themselves will end up as the best thing for society, or for the planet. Adam Smith dealt with this from the start, there is an amazing moral alchemy in capitalism which allows for improvements in your own life to drive improvements in society, but there are caveats and limits. And ideologues do not like dealing with that kind of nuance.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#103

Post by dmm »

state_machine wrote: post #93

I did not realize the physiological effects would be as severe: > The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.

My father certifies hospital gas systems in the US. He's measured CO2 levels in urban areas around 498ppm. Hospital air, the air piped to patients, has a limit of 500ppm. Soon hospitals will have to put CO2 scrubbers on their air supplies just like astronauts.

Maybe head mounted CO2 scrubbers will become fashion accessories for the 1%.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#105

Post by daxfohl »

latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

The average person has a hard enough time with immediate issues: overeating, exercising, saving for retirement, substance dependencies. So, personal life changes as response to climate change is not something we should rely on.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#106

Post by Shivetya »

awjr wrote: post #5

This always reminds me of this cartoon https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/514325219919218393/ "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" I think the key point that the article makes is that fossil fuels have enabled much of the industrialisation of the 20th and 21st century but it is also beginning to make certain areas of the world uninhabitable and yet we still seem to want to ignore the warning…

like the hoax of recent satellite observations being remapped upward to show increased heat lead by a member who has no expertise in the area? it was predicted many years ago that even those who were in the field would be forced to change their numbers to be in agreement, instead someone else stepped in and did so.

hoax or fraud, some of what both sides qualifies. the trouble is there is so much money at stake that it corrupts research.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#107

Post by mikeash »

latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

I doubt those two people have actually taken truly meaningful steps, unless they're powerful politicians, business leaders, or high up in a relevant regulatory agency.

This is the root of the problem: the actions of most individuals don't matter no matter what they are. Let's say I switch entirely to renewable energy, stop eating meat, buy local food, and do every other thing possible to reduce my footprint. Great, now I've added, what, an extra half a second to the time we have before catastrophe? It just doesn't matter.

Everyone working together is what makes a difference, of course, but that's hard. It's not just a matter of convincing everyone to act individually.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#108

Post by sanxiyn »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #68

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…

I strongly support nuclear power, and although I kind of understand their points of view, I can't stop thinking those opposing nuclear power is not serious about climate change.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#109

Post by darkerside »

uptown wrote: post #33
latch wrote: post #15

It's pretty hopeless. I used to think we'd adjust in time, but that was when the decline looked more linear (or at least I thought it looked more linear). Of the many people who I know who are seriously concerned re climate change, I'd say 2 have taken truly meaningful steps . It's not the handful of climate change deniers that's the problem. It's the overwhelming number of people who want to say they're green, but s…

The system has evolved to make change very difficult. One part of this post on ZeroHedge shows you the supply chain involved with just a ketchup. 52 transport and process stages. Fifty-two. "Just how energy inefficient the food system is can be seen in the crazy case of the Swedish tomato ketchup. Researchers at the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology analysed the production of tomato ketchup. The study cons…

Seems like that metric is about as useful as LOC

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#110

Post by joloka »

Oletros wrote: post #76
joloka wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Everything described by the fearmongers has to do with too much human activity. How is that not related to nearly 8 billion people on earth?
Post reply on HN