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

141–150 of 252 posts

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#141

Post by AndrewKemendo »

the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history

I remember when I was little, reading the Carl Sagan Cosmos book. It was based on the TV show, and had this really interesting section where it had pictures of what will happen on earth as the sun expands to a Red Giant [1].

That really stuck with me and ever since, it's clear to me that we humans live in a temporary golden period for the possibility of our form of life. Whether we burn ourselves out or wait for the environment to do it, the end result in a billion years is that there aren't humans in our form around anymore.

So whenever climate action comes up I ask: What is the end state that you are seeking? Is the goal to permanently solidify an undefined homeostasis? For what group? Are you trying to make northern Africa green again?

Again though, seems to be in vain cause it's all going to burn up in a few million years anyway. Climate action isn't TRULY long term thinking.

We have a tiny window that we can possibly engineer ourselves into a new form of intelligence. Lets work on that so that these biological issues, and our fate as a (transitional) species aren't issues anymore.

[1]http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/398013/24076923/138732...

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#142

Post by mac01021 »

golergka wrote: post #80

Why is a world war, swiftly reducing populations and industrial output, is never considered among the solutions? While horrifying, it is still better than total extinction.

It's not better than total extinction for those who die in the war.

Also, how do you know it is never considered among the solutions?

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#143

Post by enraged_camel »

opportune wrote: post #114
Brakenshire wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the major problems we have is that this amazing carbon sink is being destroyed, there have been quite a few years where slash and burn in rainforests has competed with the burning of fuels as the major source of carbon emissions. We face a major challenge to halt that, but to actually reverse it entirely and aim for a radical recreation and expansion seems ambitious. My understanding was that rainforests take…

The problem is that by focusing on rainforests, we also unfairly target some of the poorest countries on earth. Coming from westerners, who essentially deforested an entire continent (Europe) and chopped down and replanted another one (US/Canada), this message is highly hypocritical. If you're a poor farmer making $3000/year in Brazil or Indonesia you don't give two shits about what some latte-sipping American thinks…

>>The problem is that by focusing on rainforests, we also unfairly target some of the poorest countries on earth.

Those poor countries will be hit -- in fact are already hit -- the hardest by climate change.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#144

Post by mac01021 »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #141

the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history I remember when I was little, reading the Carl Sagan Cosmos book. It was based on the TV show, and had this really interesting section where it had pictures of what will happen on earth as the sun expands to a Red Giant [1]. That really stuck with me and ever since, it's clear to me that we humans live in a t…

Ok. Let's start by ensuring that our children and grandchildren have a livable environment in which to perform that work.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#145

Post by mfoy_ »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #141

the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history I remember when I was little, reading the Carl Sagan Cosmos book. It was based on the TV show, and had this really interesting section where it had pictures of what will happen on earth as the sun expands to a Red Giant [1]. That really stuck with me and ever since, it's clear to me that we humans live in a t…

Well, I'd argue it's all about buying time. Obviously nothing lasts forever, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bath-water.

If we can buy our species another couple centuries on this planet, we can probably start looking at leaving. But if we continue on this accelerated doomsday course we won't have time to re-imagine the "form" of our species.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#146

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mac01021 wrote: post #144
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #141

the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history I remember when I was little, reading the Carl Sagan Cosmos book. It was based on the TV show, and had this really interesting section where it had pictures of what will happen on earth as the sun expands to a Red Giant [1]. That really stuck with me and ever since, it's clear to me that we humans live in a t…

Ok. Let's start by ensuring that our children and grandchildren have a livable environment in which to perform that work.

Agreed. The one caveat I would make is in a case where something accelerated singularity tech, but was worse for warming/volatility, I would do the former.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#147

Post by yourapostasy »

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.

This is a controversial finding, and not well-accepted nor even abided by where it is a literal life and death matter, like in nuclear submarines [1] or the ISS. Either the LLNL experiment is somehow flawed, or systems designs that crew members depend upon for their lives for months at a time without any pause for the past few decades are poorly designed. By Occam's Razor, I'd rather look at the relatively simpler experiment first before I looked at these complex life support systems, and if anyone is to pursue the LLNL study further, they probably should start there. I'm willing to buy the hypothesis there are cognitive differences, but they would have to adequately explain what has been going on in submarines and the ISS that we missed earlier.

[1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-s...

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#148

Post by camiller »

chiefofgxbxl wrote: post #116
scottLobster wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted some people buy gratuitously large vehicles, but for many there is a practical purpose: moving large amounts of stuff. Whether it's multiple bags of mulch, dorm room furniture, sports equipment, more than 3 kids, or just lots of luggage for a family road trip, there's definitely an advantage to a big car there. Not to mention better performance in snow depending on model. In any case, one we get non-luxury el…

I think people delude themselves into thinking they're purchasing an SUV to transport a lot of stuff or to travel with kids, when in reality drivers nonetheless drive alone. Anecdotally, as I've said, SUVs have simply replaced Sedans as the "default" car on the road. And as you may know, the "default" car in America has a single driver. > In any case, one we get non-luxury electric SUVs the point will largely be moot…

I used to drive a four door sedan(Chevy Impala) and was perfectly happy with it (My then 17 year old daughter totaled it, going up against another Impala). When the time came to find it's replacement I had to meet a certain pragmatic requirement. My wife has now had six back surgeries. When her mini-van needed to be in the shop for a few days we realized that she has a substantial amount of difficulty getting out of even a large car like my Impala. We needed a second vehicle that she could basically enter/exit easily. I now drive a small'ish SUV (Kia Sorento). My Impala was probably more sturdily built, I certainly didn't feel un-safe in it.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#149

Post by enraged_camel »

NickM wrote: post #59
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…

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 still own two cars, never take public transport, eat meat daily, live in big houses, and buy buy buy. Well, suppose all the people who want to be green go ahead and cut back to one car, go vegetarian, live in a smaller house, etc. etc. Maybe if everyone is really dedicated, we c…

>>Don't put solar panels on your house out of a personal sense of guilt about your own emissions, put them on your house because it grows the market for solar, stimulates research into better panels, and helps push forward the economies of scale that are needed to make renewables cost competitive with fossil fuels

Or don't live in a house in the suburbs. Opt for medium or high-density residential areas, which are far more efficient in terms of both land and utility use.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#150

Post by dietdrb »

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…

The Climate Leadership Council is an organization of Republican Party elders with an extremely solid proposal to immediately reduce carbon emissions through a carbon fee, which is a market-based mechanism to reflect the true cost of carbon at the source.

Link to proposal: https://www.clcouncil.org/our-plan/ Link to TED talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh...

Post reply on HN