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

#121

Post by esarbe » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:16 PM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #47

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…

I too am sick of these exaggerations, it makes it hard to separate real science from crackpots. Two years before we face human extinction? Why did the reporter ask zero questions about “how”? Likely they got the quote they wanted for a clickbait headline, smirked, and carried on.

So, how many times do you think earths' ecosystem can lose 70% of it's insect biomass before it collapses completely?

Consider the two years a 'final notice period' in which we actually can change the course of the cruiser. Until we start facing the dire consequences a bit more time might pass, but it will have been to late for a long time.

It's only a matter of time until the results of our predatory overcultivation catch up with us. Do you sincerely doubt that? How much more punishment can our habitat suffer before in finally collapses?

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

#122

Post by esarbe » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:21 PM UTC

newnewpdro wrote: post #111

Collapse != extinction

It is, for humans. We've got a hard dependency on civilization because we've forgotten how to live without it and don't have any natural habitats we could live in (as hunter/gatherers) even if we remembered how.

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

#123

Post by strainer » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:23 PM UTC

zeroname wrote: post #106

strainer wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "in a sense" is just making light of what is literally a falsehood and which introduced a string of them in the source comment: "It doesn't have any properly defined meaning ...." Organics pesticide use is much more selective and heavily controlled than standard regulations[1]. Your notion that most consumers of organic food have unrealistic expectations ( with no survey to support that ) is really just a statem…

If the meaning is so "properly defined", then why do we have a self-described organic farmer in this thread , who says pesticides are off the table for him? Who decides which pesticides are okay, what is the criterion that everyone can agree on? Why are there differences across countries, if there is a proper definition of it? By the way, you can slap a "gluten free" label on table water and it'll be marketing BS, bu…

The organic farming regulations are professionally developed for decades, globally. US labeling options and regulations are officially defined [1,2] Very small scale producers like the farmer in this thread have some leeway - this is a feature of your national regulatory framework suiting small local markets, it is relevant to a tiny fraction of traded organic produce.

> Who decides which pesticides are okay, what is the criterion that everyone can agree on?

You know in this age of IT you can find answers to your questions. [3]

> Why are there differences across countries, if there is a proper definition of it?

Because it is a developed practical system, its not defined by dictionary definition - it is very complicated. Why are there differences across countries in safety regulations? How well is the term "safety" internationally defined ? Where did you get the idea that dictionary definition of "organic farming" should be able to completely explain the practice. What other well defined terms do that ?? Renewables, Genetic Engineering, Nuclear, Carbon reduction?

I think this involves unwillingness to observe context and make sense of terms, for the sake of the sort of argument which is fun for supporting sport teams.

[1] https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/labeling

[2] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=9874504b6f1...

[3] https://www.ifoam.bio/en/about-us

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

#124

Post by esarbe » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:31 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #112

Humanity will never go extinct as long as the Earth supports photosynthesis generally. If the ecosystem collapses, we might suffer for a little while, but our technology can overcome any environmental problem. Environmental damage, no matter how severe, is not an existential threat, and hyping it up as so does nobody any favors. That said, environmental damage is expensive, and we should mitigate it. But we should do…

Holy cow, Batman, that's some fatal case of hubris if I've ever seen one.

Environmental damage /is/ an /existential/ threat. We're part of an ecosystem, we're not independent of it. We have no way to produce food or oxygen without an ecosystem. In what artificial Biosphere do you live in?

The sheer audacity leaves me (almost) speechless.

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

#125

Post by quotemstr » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:33 PM UTC

esarbe wrote: post #124

quotemstr wrote: post #112

Humanity will never go extinct as long as the Earth supports photosynthesis generally. If the ecosystem collapses, we might suffer for a little while, but our technology can overcome any environmental problem. Environmental damage, no matter how severe, is not an existential threat, and hyping it up as so does nobody any favors. That said, environmental damage is expensive, and we should mitigate it. But we should do…

Holy cow, Batman, that's some fatal case of hubris if I've ever seen one. Environmental damage /is/ an /existential/ threat. We're part of an ecosystem, we're not independent of it. We have no way to produce food or oxygen without an ecosystem. In what artificial Biosphere do you live in? The sheer audacity leaves me (almost) speechless.

Agriculture is producing food without the ecosystem.

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

#126

Post by esarbe » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:37 PM 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…

I don't think that humanity will survive a collapse of the current civilisation. First, we don't have the knowledge to go back to a pre-civilisation culture anymore. And second; we don't have the habitat to go pre-civilsation hunter/gatherer anymore.

It's pretty much make or break for humanity.

(As an aside: we've pretty much exhausted the easily available fossil energy sources, so no re-starting a civilsation on the glowing embers of knowledge and wisdom hidden in deep bunkers. Nobody's going to read that, ever.)

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

#127

Post by boombust » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:40 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #48

boombust wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you hinted in your edit, you are describing the essence of a collection action problem. Ultimately, we measure the success of our capitalist economies in total receipts, and optimise accordingly. Our markets (and our cultures) prioritise consumption over repair or even abstention. That last point might seem contentious but truth be told, most of us would rather buy something new than repair something broken unless…

As you pointed out, one of the issues is special interests. But in a rational world, it is obvious that people will use whatever tools at their disposal to improve their chances. So by definition, any sentient and rational society will have lobbying - anywhere in the universe. So this is not a bug but a feature. In theory these lobby groups will be dragged to a stale mate by counter lobby groups, but practically the…

I am not sure I agree with your insistence on using the word rational. What is rational depends entirely on the perspective of the agent observing and is not a useful assumption, in my opinion.

I want to touch on what you said about lobbies and give you my take on it.

The characteristics of successful lobbies have three key properties. Within any dispute/issue the most important quality that determines influence of a group/cause is organisation. An organised faction will always triumph over the disorganised masses. Then, the second most important factor is possession of any tactical advantages to advance their goal over their adversaries. These can be anything from superior methods to a willingness to do things that the other side is not. The last, and least important, is the size of the group. Each factor is meaningless without the preceding one.

As a consequence, I would agree that other groups would 'win' in this case. But they wouldn't actually need to win, they would just need engage in dirty tactics such as proliferation of fake news, muddying public discourse, bribe political officials, etc. Humanity would face the greatest difficulty dealing with the lengths that special interests are willing to go to to wield undue influence and stagnate progress.

However, I do not share your abject and defeatist view. I concede that humanity is facing a battle in the trenches to ensure the health of our ecosystems. We all must take responsibility for what is coming because to do nothing is to allow bad actors to get away with being shitheads. Given that the survival of our species and many others on Earth is at stake this should not be acceptable to any one with a shred of empathy to possible future generations.

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

#128

Post by esarbe » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:43 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #125

esarbe wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy cow, Batman, that's some fatal case of hubris if I've ever seen one. Environmental damage /is/ an /existential/ threat. We're part of an ecosystem, we're not independent of it. We have no way to produce food or oxygen without an ecosystem. In what artificial Biosphere do you live in? The sheer audacity leaves me (almost) speechless.

Agriculture is producing food without the ecosystem.

Nope, it isn't. You're still dependent on the fertile soil, on nematodes and fungi, on insects and arthropods. You fool yourself when you think that all these square kilometers of dry and dead dust will yield anything at all when there's no ecosystem around to renew the dehydrated husk of soil we leave when we're done.

Google for 'arable soil loss' and read a bit about it, please.

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

#129

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 7:47 PM UTC

zeroname wrote: post #104

strainer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not just a label, its a regulated labeling term. Practically all food labelled as organic in US, EU and other regions has to be certified organic. This "marketing BS" idea is pure meme. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-labeling-s...

It's still marketing BS. Yes, governments certify and regulates marketing BS. The part that makes it BS has nothing to do with regulation. Homeopathy and Chiropractic are regulated and certified in various ways, they're still BS.

[deleted]

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

#130

Post by alehul » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 8:19 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #118

alehul wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you banned the pesticides, it would do a lot of good, but now consider how many more acres would need to be farmed in order to keep the overall yields the same. How many acres would be cleared that would not otherwise be cleared? The argument above, if I'm not mistaken, is that we should produce less food, and so if that is the objective, we can farm the same acreage with a lower yield per acre just fine. Less s…

What about the humans who eat that food ? Should we kill them now or just let them starve ? (there's only a few percent more food than needed, so ...)

I'm not commenting on the soundness of the above argument, merely trying to make sure its premises are correctly interpreted. :)

I think other comments, however, did address the discussion of people who struggle to afford food at current prices-- additionally, in the U.S. specifically, 40% of food is wasted [1]. Maybe just a decrease in U.S. food supply would be in order? Or specifically countries where food waste is that high?

[1] https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf