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

Protect the last of the wild

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#41

Post by gerbilly »

worldsayshi wrote: post #7
fractallyte wrote: post #3

I'd argue that humanity certainly requires huge tracts of wilderness for its long term survival. So far, we've successfully transformed diverse ecosystems into vast, but basic, mono-cultural 'deserts'. But - is it sustainable? In the century since the Haber process was introduced, the world has started to buckle at the seams from the results: huge population growth, with accompanying pollution (nitrates, pesticides,…

My naive impression is that the safest bet for survival would be to improve our technological mastery to a point where we can create near-closed and self sufficient ecosystems for small populations that they can be fully in control of, like deep space habitats. Such habitats should be able to support life inside indefinitely and be able to produce new habitat. And we need to make sure that we can maintain a high leve…

> Such habitats should be able to support life inside indefinitely and be able to produce new habitat...

We have this already, and it's free.

We're just too short sighted as a species to fully appreciate it, so we degrade or even destroy those habitats for short term gains.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#42

Post by gerbilly »

ivanhoe wrote: post #20

Problem here is that developed world has destroyed it's wilderness long time ago, used that land to produce food and resources, but now we demand that others don't do the same. Why don't we instead create a wilderness by giving up on our local agriculture land? Nature takes back the land very quickly and if you limit hunting and repopulate the animals you'll quickly have a full-blown wilderness back. It doesn't have…

> Problem here is that developed world has destroyed it's wilderness long time ago, used that land to produce food and resources, but now we demand that others don't do the same.

So why not pay those countries to leave their wilderness wild?

It would be like saying: "You know, we really screwed up, and you guys are the only ones who have some of this precious wilderness left. We'd like to pay you to preserve it."

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#43

Post by ab71e5 »

taneq wrote: post #36
ab71e5 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we also evolved to have a large cerebral cortex that allows us to make decisions that go against certain impulses because we are able to see the bigger picture. We evolved to conserve energy when possible but we exercise anyway because we know that if we don`t it will be detrimental to our health. And many people are still healthy while on a vegetarian diet so it is possible.

Speaking as a life-long vegetarian here, I don't think most people are naturally suited to it. I don't eat meat because I don't want to. I know I'd hate to live my life wanting, say, cheese, or spinach, or whatever, and denying it to myself because of some imagined higher good. I feel like people should embrace their nature. Mine doesn't happen to include eating meat. Most peoples' does, and that's OK.

So then it's a nature/nurture kind of discussion. Do you think some people are genetically unable to stop eating meat? Personally, I think your tastes will adapt, i.e. it wouldn't feel like denying yourself anything after a while. But maybe it's different for some people.

Also commercials and just society around you influences your cravings. I think if you would grow up somewhere where there is no dairy for example, you would not crave it.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#44

Post by myth_drannon »

claydavisss wrote: post #28
omosubi wrote: post #16

I've been thinking about this quote a lot recently - "Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you…

Canada has a terrible environmental record that completely undermines its progressive reputation. The tar sands project may be the single most egregious resources undertaking in history. But other so-called progressive industrialized nations aren't much better. Norway is also wealthy primarily due to the extraction of fossil fuels.

Hopefully with the oil prices so low and keep getting lower, the tar sands is a dead project

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#45

Post by drb91 »

shinryuu wrote: post #14
hazz99 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I seriously think lab grown meats will save the world, if we can pull it off in a commercially viable fashion.

It's fascinating how human beings cling to old habits. It's like we as a species couldn't go vegetarian by choice.

Depending on humans to do “the right thing” when it goes against our instincts is not a good way to approach these problems. You need to offer ways for humans to satiate their needs AND do the right thing.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#46

Post by myth_drannon »

Interesting that the article comes a week after Brazilians elected an extreme right-wing president that promised to open up all the Amazon's nature reserves for mining and farming. I expect the next 4 years will be very sad for Amazon forests.

At HN we are discussing roguelike game development while the world around us is systematically destroyed and what will be left is us experiencing nature through a Nethack game.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#47

Post by jcelerier »

myth_drannon wrote: post #44
claydavisss wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canada has a terrible environmental record that completely undermines its progressive reputation. The tar sands project may be the single most egregious resources undertaking in history. But other so-called progressive industrialized nations aren't much better. Norway is also wealthy primarily due to the extraction of fossil fuels.

Hopefully with the oil prices so low and keep getting lower, the tar sands is a dead project

> with the oil prices so low and keep getting lower

cries in french

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#48

Post by myth_drannon »

claydavisss wrote: post #28
omosubi wrote: post #16

I've been thinking about this quote a lot recently - "Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you…

Canada has a terrible environmental record that completely undermines its progressive reputation. The tar sands project may be the single most egregious resources undertaking in history. But other so-called progressive industrialized nations aren't much better. Norway is also wealthy primarily due to the extraction of fossil fuels.

260$ billion to clean up Alberta's oilpatch https://www.thestar.com/news/investigations/2018/11/01/what-...

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#49

Post by farrisbris »

claydavisss wrote: post #28
omosubi wrote: post #16

I've been thinking about this quote a lot recently - "Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you…

Canada has a terrible environmental record that completely undermines its progressive reputation. The tar sands project may be the single most egregious resources undertaking in history. But other so-called progressive industrialized nations aren't much better. Norway is also wealthy primarily due to the extraction of fossil fuels.

Sheeeet..

Norway is in the middle of trying to figure this out. Or we are where we have always been: Pretending to do everything we can to protect the climate while actually doing almost nothing that would impact our standard of living. Its hard to tell if we are actually moving the discussion forward or not.

We are happy to spend billions funding rainforrests around the world, but we won't make any hard choices that affect us at home.

Stopping the national subsidies for oil exploration is something that would probably stop it dead in its tracks. But we are not doing that. We are instead in the process of opening new areas for explorative drilling. There might be some truth to the "clean oil technology" talk, but it doesn't change the fact that oil == carbon.

The only reason we havn't started drilling in "Lofoton"( our famous fishing grounds and home of a lot of magnificent scenery constantly posted on reddit ) is that a few small swing parties are putting their foot down. All the larger parties want to drill. As they always have. Its depressing.

We do have the fairly new(in terms of actually being voted for) "Green" party which is basically a single-issue party. I'm hoping they can steer the conversation to a point where will be able to make hard choices.

Not to derail too much, but this also applies to everything else we do or dont do. Like not cutting arm sales to the saudies etc. Its money talks all the way.

Edit: and don't get me starte on wolves. Even while the majority of norwegians seemingly wants wolves in our forests, we seem to be dead set on limiting their numbers to a population which is not going to sustain itself genetically. Rip wolves.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#50

Post by village-idiot »

simoom22 wrote: post #31
village-idiot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re ignoring what I’m saying. I also don’t believe that vegans are healthy. Sure, they don’t starve (omnivores, after all). But I want to see their regular glucose levels and their mortality rates. The way I eat (omnivore) is ancient, veganism is brand new.

Humans are primates, and most primates of the world are vegan, or nearly so, including our closest relatives. That's not something new.

Our two closest primate relatives are not vegan, they’re omnivores. Bonobos and chimpanzees hunt smaller mammals.
Post reply on HN