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

151–160 of 252 posts

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#151

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mfoy_ wrote: post #145
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.

Also agree. I think we can practically do things that make sense economically, as well as environmentally that are no brainers like transitioning to renewable resources, solar, geo etc...

The challenge is the lifestyle changes that transitioning economies expect in terms of total household energy expenditures. I think the biggest thing is helping developing and transitioning economies continue to raise their standard of living but through renewable resources, and not just piling more coal onto the fire.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#152

Post by jerrylives »

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…

>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.

What about the entropic heat death of the universe? Seems to be in vain cause its all gonna settle to an equilibrium of nothingness. Transhuman action isn't TRULY long term thinking

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#153

Post by Animats »

Right now, some very hot areas are becoming uninhabitable, and low-lying coastal areas are being flooded. In the US, this has already hit a few areas hard, such as Phoenix AZ [1] and Miami FL.[2]

Phoenix is breaking heat records again this week. The number of days of extreme heat each summer keeps increasing. Phoenix also has limited water sources; it's a city in a desert, after all.

Miami now floods regularly. Levees and berms don't help much; the ground is too porous. Pumping helps; at least a dozen huge pumps have been installed, with many more to come. This is a stopgap measure, the mayor of Miami admits.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-phoenix-climate-adapt-20... [2] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-agains...

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#154

Post by AndrewKemendo »

jerrylives wrote: post #152
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…

>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. What about the entropic heat death of the universe? Seems to be in vain cause its all gonna settle to an equilibrium of nothingness. Transhuman action isn't TRULY long term thinking

You joke but I struggle with that existential question all the time.

I have a few silly theories about it, but it's a real philosophical problem.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#155

Post by eddieplan9 »

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…

If you look at the changes of carbon emission per country, the U.S. emission has decreased in the last 20 years. China's emission has tripled in the same period:

https://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/...

The main reason is the growth of Chinese economy. So if you want to make real impact, help the next emerging economies to grow without incurring huge growth in emissions. For example, if you look at the per-capital carbon emission by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

China's is half of that of US, while India's is 1/8. Imagine if the India's number grow 4 times to that of China's, any saving in the U.S. will be completely cancelled out and some. In fact, U.S. can cut its emission to 0, and India only needs to grow its number to 75% of that of China's to cancel out the U.S. improvement.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#156

Post by yourapostasy »

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 think people delude themselves into thinking they're purchasing an SUV to...travel with kids...

There has been a big change in the US that pushed many families to select SUV's and bigger cars in general: child seats became mandatory. These were rare during the 70's and earlier. They take up quite a lot of space when rear-facing (and if you use them strictly according to guidelines, they will be installed rear-facing for a very big part of their service life).

During the 70's it wasn't unusual to see families cramming groceries and shopping items in between where their children sat in the car, and anywhere else the items would fit, for that matter; you can't do that any longer, and in fact higher child safety awareness in cars even discourages that practice because of the possibility those items become missiles during an accident.

Nor is this practice recommended for where the adults sit. So a lot of families end up going with SUV's or minivans (why station wagons are not picked is another tragic story), to have enough to safely carry passengers, shopping, and sports/activity gear.

So yes, you can advocate for smaller cars, but you should be up front about the trade-off. Either more trips are made, wasting time, money and fuel, and/or safety is compromised, and/or lifestyles are drastically altered. To sell these compromises, you have to offer a benefit more compelling than "catastrophic outcome that doesn't affect you now might be averted". I'm not saying we shouldn't adopt small cars (I bike most days myself), I'm laying out the reality on the ground to convince the mass of developed world citizens to adopt them.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#157

Post by antisthenes »

_rpd wrote: post #120
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 level of impairment conflicts with data from military studies, for example ... > CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen https://www.nap.edu/read/11170/chapter/5#54 but it is something certainly worth further investigation.

> Twenty-four volunteers, ages 18-23, were selected for their motivation and their excellent health.

If only we were all 18-23 years old in excellent health. The amount of abuse sustained and the speed of recovery my 20 year old self could sustain compared to my 30 year old self is truly astonishing.

When you're young, your body can compensate in a myriad ways you aren't even thinking about, that obviously weren't measured in the study.

It's a good start but not really relevant to the possible scenarios.

1. Dubious sample selection (perfect health, probably above average cognitive ability as well)

2. High levels/short term exposure rather than moderate levels & long term exposure (1+ year)

3. Tests were likely too simple and did not require a high level of abstraction/cognition in the first place.

I know sample n=1, but I've experienced increased anxiety and lower energy levels at ppms as low as 2000-3000, which you can easily encounter in a poorly ventilated room.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#158

Post by mac01021 »

joloka wrote: post #112
cbennett wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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 communism. Where is the second half of the article where, after discussing at length many bad possible outcomes, the guy goes on to propose detail…

You're right in that I never made it to the end, it was just that bad. It's like the weekend crap fearmonger articles you get on Zerohedge every weekend, albeit with better graphics. Not trolling.

Do you dispute the accuracy of the statements made in the article, or just that they should be put in writing?

If you believe the article to be filled with lies, you could explain why.

If you just think it's filled with truths that should not be uttered, that seems to me like a rather strange position to take. The goal is to build political will in favor of government action that puts a price on CO2 emissions. Terrifying people about things that are truly terrifying, while not guaranteed to help a whole lot, is at worst not counterproductive. And if you happen to terrify/enlighten/educate the right handful of rich people it might just have a tremendous impact.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#159

Post by philipkglass »

sluggg wrote: post #125
Daishiman wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you going to stop eating meat?

is there a way to significantly cut down on my carbon footprint by only eating certain animals?

Ruminant meats (beef, lamb, goat) have a higher GHG impact due to enteric fermentation producing methane.

Numerically, you can't cut a lot of your GHG impact by reducing/switching meat consumption if you are living an ordinary middle class first world lifestyle in other respects.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

Methane accounts for about 10% of warming from anthropogenic US GHG emissions. Enteric fermentation in ruminants accounts for 25% of that 10%, and agricultural manure another 10%. So you can cut maybe 25% of 10% (2.5%) from baseline-American emissions by eliminating red meat from your diet, or 35% of 10% (3.5%) by eliminating animal products altogether.

It's similar in the European Union:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

Agriculture accounts for 10% of emissions, and meat production is just a portion of that.

Personal dietary changes are at least quick and inexpensive, even if they don't lead to deep emissions reductions. I stopped eating red meat a few years ago because of a family history of heart attacks. It actually saved money on my grocery bills.

Re: The Uninhabitable Earth

#160

Post by mikeash »

jerrycruncher wrote: post #127
mikeash wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, n…

This lazy cynicism is far too commonplace, and easily countered: If a whole lot of people added their half-seconds together, it would matter a whole lot. You either care enough to change your behavior or you don't. Don't pass your lack of courage of conviction off onto nameless "...politicians, business leaders or [those] high up in a relevant regulatory agency."

I already addressed that in the last paragraph of my comment. Yes, if a whole lot of people did it together, it would matter a lot. And if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.

It takes a completely different approach to get a lot of people to take action than it does to take action myself. If I want other people to change their lives, I need to convince them to do it, or force them to do it, or come up with great new technology that allows them to do it while making their lives better, or something like that. If I want to change my own life, I need to buy different stuff, use different stuff, eat different stuff, etc. The two are essentially unrelated.

You're right, I don't care enough to change my behavior. That's because the effort/reward ratio is completely busted. The reward is indistinguishable from zero, so I'd need to care an essentially infinite amount.

Post reply on HN