Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#21

Post by gepi79 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:27 AM UTC

ah765 wrote: post #9

I agree with the big idea of conservation of biodiversity, but it really bothers me when these articles are using what seems like lies and fear tactics to convince me. 2 years? Why is it so urgent? The article doesn't explain. And "By 2050, Africa is expected to lose 50% of its birds and mammals," sounded really implausible to me. I had to do further research to determine that they are probably actually referring to…

> "50% of species" rather than "50% of population", which is a very big difference

Loss of 50% of species is really bad. Population growth and climate change will only accelerate the loss.

While I would welcome a decrease of the population of farm animals by 50% or 75%.

https://xkcd.com/1338/

Besides, humans will never die out because of lack of "resources".

Instead:

- either the sun kills all intelligent life on Earth maybe in 600 million years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth

- or ET or AI kill us.

- or some huge object from outer space collides with Earth.

IMO transhumanism will end the biological evolution of humans. Maybe as soon as this century.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#22

Post by _iiu1 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:29 AM UTC

justaaron wrote: post #20

9712263 wrote: post #5

Terraforming Mars, or maybe just create a habitable satellite is easier than saving the earth. Current economical model fosters growing business, and only government regulation to deal with externality. Growing is intuitive to human activity, but restricting human growth is counter-intuitive. I forget the link, but a lecture video using bacteria growth as a metaphor of human growth creeps me out. Supposed bacteria in…

Holy guacamole. "easier to terraform mars or create a habitable satellite than saving earth" this is the most ignorant thing I've ever seen written on the internet. Get back to me once you have 1/10000000th the bio-diversity of earth on your habitable satellite. 1) change our paradigms, economic system, and other social factors. I can assure you that this is far more maleable than Martian soil composition... our soci…

I propose a voluntary mission where all those interested in perpetual crapitalism and archaic social values voluntarily move en-masse to Mars, and please try not to rob too many of Earths resources getting there...

Bring the right wingers and life-haters with you too please...

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#23

Post by gepi79 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:30 AM UTC

justaaron wrote: post #20

9712263 wrote: post #5

Terraforming Mars, or maybe just create a habitable satellite is easier than saving the earth. Current economical model fosters growing business, and only government regulation to deal with externality. Growing is intuitive to human activity, but restricting human growth is counter-intuitive. I forget the link, but a lecture video using bacteria growth as a metaphor of human growth creeps me out. Supposed bacteria in…

Holy guacamole. "easier to terraform mars or create a habitable satellite than saving earth" this is the most ignorant thing I've ever seen written on the internet. Get back to me once you have 1/10000000th the bio-diversity of earth on your habitable satellite. 1) change our paradigms, economic system, and other social factors. I can assure you that this is far more maleable than Martian soil composition... our soci…

Indeed, people are dangerously ignorant regarding Earth and Mars.

If we can not rescue Earth, a biological paradise, we have no hope to make it on Mars, a biological hell.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#24

Post by coldtea » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:36 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #2

So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…

>So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail?

Who is going to pay for the billions of corpses of men, women, and children? (And the "reduction in growth" that that entails)

>It’s very rational for business firms to lobby against externalities being priced in. It’s rational for ranchers to cut forests for economic gains. And it’s rational for the many many people who are being propelled up out of poverty to want better food, clothing and power.

This confuses "profitable" with "rational".

Motives (e.g. the profit motive, or altruism, or thinking about the commons) are not "rational" or "irrational", they are personal and sentimental.

One can think rationally about what their actions will bring on. The decision depends on their intentions and feelings, which themselves have little to do with rationality.

Picking the most profitable of two courses of action, externalities be damned, doesn't require reasoned thinking (only as much as to figure out which is the most profitable).

But while calculation "this will bring me profit" involves rational thinking, so does the calculation "this will also eventually destroy this place, or hurt society".

People are perfectly able to reason about the general (e.g. societal) and future impact of their actions, and avoid doing stuff that will have negative consequences.

It doesn't take irrationality to do that -- just not being a selfish greedy prick, which is orthogonal to rational thinking.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#25

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:37 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #2

So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…

> So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail?

Extinction is not about money. The choice is to 'pay' now or to 'pay' later in a much harsher way.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#26

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:39 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #17

kingkawn wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a total failure of an empty concept of rationality if it can’t avoid extinguishing life itself...

Globally, yeah sure. But all that will die is just most of humanity and the world - our current way of life. People survived worse, and people are busy building island getaways hoping to be those last few people standing. Humans don’t act like a hive. Instead, we have local alliances and local optimums. You know, I bet, right now, there’s a plan somewhere in America for what to do in a doomsday scenario to ensure sur…

It is not 'your way of life' that will end, it is 'our lives' that will end. All of them.

Your fixes are fantasy, not reality.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#27

Post by coldtea » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:45 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #13

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rational? It's about as far from rational as it's possible to get. Homo economicus is the perfect caricature, as humans usually make purchasing decisions for far from rational reasons. They buy for emotion, because of brand, etc. Read any current marketing book. The system within which we operate claims rationality solely on the basis of conveniently ignoring anything that might impinge: pollution, environmental dama…

That marketing book and the course that teaches marketers is run by Homo economicus. The economy is very much built by Homo economicus. The consumers are just assume customer to be Homo economicus. (except we know that it’s just poor old Homo sapiens, which is why the shiny stuff is at the checkout counter. Let’s ~~exploit~~ optimize for all those gaps in cognition.) So I’d have to highlight that Economic man is hard…

>The economy is very much built by Homo economicus. The consumers are just assume customer to be Homo economicus.

This confuses the map with the territory.

The economy is built by actual people, with dreams, desires, etc, whose behavior is usually far beyond what the "Homo economics" would dictate.

Homo economicus is just a crude model.

>The cost of that externality will never get priced in fully, because it’s in the interest of people to pretend it’s someone else’s problem (especially when they’re people’s jobs and food on the line.)

Well, it will be fun to see them suddenly rebalance their "interests" when they are plagued to death, and it's their life and the life of their children on the line.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#28

Post by anon1203 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:47 AM UTC

We can't even stop killing each other because of greed and other stupid reasons, we can't even stop global warming, who's going to stop biodiversity loss and how? It's in the nature of mankind to create but also destroy. Every era of civilization was build on the ashes of the former, and the next will not be different, a lot of people will have to die of violent death for humanity to evolve and come to its senses. we are at the beginning of a climate refugee crisis of proportions never seen before,coming from Southern countries, do people really think it will go smoothly?

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#29

Post by humanetech » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:52 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #2

So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…

> That’s why my point on our economy being levered. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest to halt growth. Every % of global gdp growth is millions of people out of poverty.

That is a short-term view. Look how growth will stall and turn into decline if we continue on our present path.

> Which is why the question. Are people really incentivized to bell the cat - to actually price in externalities ?

Probably not by themselves, because most people put their own self-interest first, and our economic systems stimulate them that this is the best way.

It needs the concerted effort of many to apply sufficient pressure to take the long-term view and affect real change.

And I guess this is particularly hard, as our current (broken?) systems also promote wealth inequality, and the rich and powerful - those who can help the most - are less inclined to do so, because they'll be among the last to really suffer the consequences of inaction.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#30

Post by PeterisP » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:59 AM UTC

roryisok wrote: post #7

intended wrote: post #2

So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…

> I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under domes, in the far future. > Is there some other plausible outcome? Completely implausible. Who's going to pay for these "domes"?

People who are going to directly benefit from them. That is the difference between this (which is plausible) and unilaterally restricting your economy, which is going to definitely hurt you now but possibly (only if rest of the world does their part) benefit others later.

Part of the reason why we're doing so little to fight climate change is the misalignment of incentives because at least in the mid-term the groups who would have to pay for this fight don't overlap that much with the groups who'll suffer the first major consequences.

For the long term (100+ years?), there's tragedy of commons scenario - we want everyone else to restrict their economy, because doing it unilaterally won't help, so unless we can agree on binding restrictions for most countries, it's not going to happen; but in the mid-term it's not even a common environment, as the majority of expected harm is expected at places who don't have a meaningful impact on the global economy.