Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says • Hacker News Board

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#181

Post by khalilravanna » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

rv-de wrote: post #142

mfatica wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> meat is unhealthy - period. It's a nice to have but it is at the end of the day just not good for you. [citation needed]

I just invested 17 seconds into your health, buddy :) Here you go: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780279

Not to be a pedant but the study states "increasing amounts of red meat and particularly of processed meat" and even says the negative association "has been absent with white meat". I imagine the [citation needed] comment was more calling all out the blanket-ness of "meat is unhealthy - period". I think it'd be more accurate to say "large amounts of meat, especially red meat, are unhealthy - period".

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#182

Post by TallGuyShort » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

eropple wrote: post #174

TallGuyShort wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah if only we could figure out how it got associated with obnoxious people in the first place.

I guess, sure, you can chalk it up to "those annoying people" and just be done. Or you can look at the way that many Americans (for the purposes of this discussion; I am one, and I don't have sufficient insight into other folks) react to anybody suggesting anything is wrong with the status quo. America has not a conservative problem but a reactionary one, even outside of what is generally considered "political". This…

Only thing you can do about that, IMO, is to not be reactionary and not make arguments that seem in the slightest threatening to people. Taking the marriage example, if someone brings up "the sanctity of marriage", instead of just being against that idea, I point out that I agree marriage is sacred and as such I don't want it being subject to definitions in a vote, or having sacred religious ceremonies attached to tax incentives. I think I've changed more than a few peoples minds with that one. People are irrationally reactionary, I agree, but the best response is to not give them so much to react to.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#183

Post by The_Stone » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:15 PM UTC

kmlx wrote: post #151

Hopefully this will make us ditch the planet and finally look towards the stars. But I fear it will actually lead us towards an "Interstellar" future: where our inter-planetary progress is hampered by this single planet that we want to save.

You can't migrate every person on the planet to another one. And we still haven't found any planets remotely as habitable as our own, nor solved the problems related to long-term space travel or terraforming. And above all else, why the hell would you be content with throwing away Earth, the most livable planet we know of? The idea of saving the human race by just going somewhere else is laughable.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#184

Post by inflatableDodo » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:16 PM UTC

kmlx wrote: post #151

Hopefully this will make us ditch the planet and finally look towards the stars. But I fear it will actually lead us towards an "Interstellar" future: where our inter-planetary progress is hampered by this single planet that we want to save.

Part of the reason I want to see massive populated orbitals and an economy develop in space is because I want to see this planet do better. We need a hope that isn't delineated by having a global government that enforces the number of children people have and having somewhere else to go is one of the long term solutions that could avoid this.

We could also bet on everyone becoming socially responsible, but while people are waiting for that to occur, I suggest we get really good at asteroid mining.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#185

Post by mcdramamean » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:17 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #179

mcdramamean wrote: post #176

We need to do something; and that's heal our psychology. We can't just save the planet because all the thing that are killing it are things that we make "to feel good". Most of our economy is based on consuming things we don't need. Most of the pollutions comes for the energy sector and all the containers that get shipped across the ocean. Ocean Cruises are pretty bad also. We need to focus on how to get the entire p…

> If 80% of the planet goes green, but 20% is still emitting pollutions, we are still in the same boat (just not sinking as fast). I'm not sure this is actually representative of the facts. We don't need 100% of the planet to go green to stabilize our temperature below a threshold and there are negative feedbacks on carbon emissions.

Agreed. And you are right. I made these numbers up; and I ca n imagine a scenario that would allow MOST of the planet to go green and we can stop the damage. But in my scenario, what if that 20% are countries like China and Russia; that produce and consume alot of energy. Just a thought experiment. My point is, we have to have the whole world be on the same page to solve the real issues that would cause us to continue to ruin our environment; even when we KNOW we are doing it (aka govt, military, corps know the truth and still continue on). This is a psychological problem. Do you agree?

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#186

Post by MiroF » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:20 PM UTC

mcdramamean wrote: post #185

MiroF wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If 80% of the planet goes green, but 20% is still emitting pollutions, we are still in the same boat (just not sinking as fast). I'm not sure this is actually representative of the facts. We don't need 100% of the planet to go green to stabilize our temperature below a threshold and there are negative feedbacks on carbon emissions.

Agreed. And you are right. I made these numbers up; and I ca n imagine a scenario that would allow MOST of the planet to go green and we can stop the damage. But in my scenario, what if that 20% are countries like China and Russia; that produce and consume alot of energy. Just a thought experiment. My point is, we have to have the whole world be on the same page to solve the real issues that would cause us to continu…

> China and Russia

Well, that's already over 20% of the world population!

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#187

Post by mfatica » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

rv-de wrote: post #142

mfatica wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> meat is unhealthy - period. It's a nice to have but it is at the end of the day just not good for you. [citation needed]

I just invested 17 seconds into your health, buddy :) Here you go: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780279

Not sure how that proves "meat is unhealthy - period." This study specifically calls out red meat and processed meat. It says nothing about poultry or fish. Did you read the entire abstract?

> The association has not always been noted with red meat, and it has been absent with white meat.

So white meat is fine. Furthermore, the protein need is so great that for those over 70, restrictive recommendations should not be applied:

> Restrictive recommendations should not be applied to subjects above about 70 years of age, as the studies quoted herein did not examine this age group, and the inclusion of sufficient protein supply (e. g. in the form of meat) is particularly important in the elderly.

So, pretty obviously shown from your own source that "meat is unhealthy - period" is a false claim.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#188

Post by thwarted » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

x3haloed wrote: post #144

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #114

So? Isn't this just evolution in action? Isn't this what's supposed to happen? We kill off 1M species, we eat the planet, humans eventually go through a winnowing process, from lack of resources, or nuclear war, or AI, and in a couple hundred million years, everything adapts to fill out the prevailing ecology again. What makes us think we're so special? I'm only being partly sarcastic here. With 500 MILLION years of…

Careful - the belief in evolution as a sacred and holy process is what leads to racism. I know you said you're half sarcastic, but that means you half-believe it. Evolution is simply a process by which generations of organisms become more fit to their environment over time. Treating it as something more - some kind of natural state of the universe or hand of destiny is what leads to the idea that it's necessary to fa…

But pretending that we have no impact or control of any kind in the process of evolution on Earth is just an attempt wash our hands of responsibility.

Intelligence can be humanity's evolutionary advantage. But that does not mean humanity is the final arbiter of evolution, even of its own, at least at this stage of development. To think that humanity exists outside evolution, or that humanity's intelligence is not the result of evolution, is hubris, instead of being subject to evolution's "successes" and "failures". It's just as likely that our "intelligence" ends up being an evolutionary disadvantage if we end up making ourselves extinct, as being an evolutionary advantage. Yes, we'd have to take responsibility for that, but then I guess we pay the ultimate price,

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#189

Post by inflatableDodo » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:23 PM UTC

The_Stone wrote: post #183

kmlx wrote: post #151

Hopefully this will make us ditch the planet and finally look towards the stars. But I fear it will actually lead us towards an "Interstellar" future: where our inter-planetary progress is hampered by this single planet that we want to save.

You can't migrate every person on the planet to another one. And we still haven't found any planets remotely as habitable as our own, nor solved the problems related to long-term space travel or terraforming. And above all else, why the hell would you be content with throwing away Earth, the most livable planet we know of? The idea of saving the human race by just going somewhere else is laughable.

>You can't migrate every person on the planet to another one.

I completely agree, none of them are suitable. On the other hand, space habitats built from asteroids are a practical possibility.

>"If the asteroids are ultimately used as the material resource for the building of new colonies, and if by constructing new colonies near asteroids relatively little reaction mass is wasted in transportation, the area of land that is made available on the space frontier can be estimated. Assuming 13 km of total area per person, it appears that space habitats might be constructed that would provide new lands with a total area some 3,000 times that of the Earth. For a very long time at least mankind can look toward resources so nearly inexhaustible that the current frustration of limits to growth can be replaced by a sense of openness and the absence of barriers to further human development."

From the NASA report, 'Space Settlements: A Design Study' - https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/75SummerStudy/Table_of_Conte...

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#190

Post by jlokier » Mon, May 06, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #70

bryanlarsen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is an incredibly dangerous attitude. Kudos that you're doing your part, and leading by example is important. However, systemic change is possible. We have numerous counter-examples: the UN, the Montreal protocol, free trade deals, et cetera. So why don't we have systemic change for climate change, because people like you and I let our politicians get away with it! If it was obvious to politicians that…

Maybe I wasn't very clear. I am not against systemic change. Surely we need to keep pushing for it. It's not either/or. We should use every method we can. On the other hand, recently I've been thinking about this. According to some theory it takes about 3.5% of the population to take part in active resistance to cause change ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w ). Now, 3.5% is clearly not a m…

> According to some theory it takes about 3.5% of the population to take part in active resistance to cause change

If that's true, it should be made more widely known.

I think that would be cause for hope for many people who despair at democracy and collective idiocy, and it would change their behaviour because of hope and belief in the effect of personal actions.

If the 3.5% is actually true, that change of behaviour caused by knowing it might tip serious balances.