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

The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#131

Post by dahdum »

ineedasername wrote: post #68
partialrecall wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article contextualizes the truth in terms of the pro-climate narrative, > "Losing the Amazon, beyond representing a planetary historic tragedy beyond measure, would also make meeting the ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement all but impossible. World leaders need to marshal all their political and diplomatic might to save it." So what exactly are you calling out? Better the Atlantic be the one to call ou…

Why does it matter who calls out the falsehood? Otherwise, while the article may come out acknowledging climate change, the headline comes across as click-bait that could easily be pushed into a climate-denier narrative. Better to have a more neutral title like "The Amazon's Role in Global Oxygen Production". That stops the facts from being decontextualized.

The title initially appeared to be clickbait, but as soon as I saw it was The Atlantic I knew it was going to be a serious reply. The title is a direct reference to all the meme journalism happening recently.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#132

Post by sharkmerry »

leetcrew wrote: post #88
throwaway5752 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I actually don't give a crap. This meta discussion aside, I actually know that my time on this planet is finite and as a result my attention is finite. Whether of not the Amazon is the Earth's lungs is a pedantic point. If it is or not, it doesn't change my stance on preserving it. So, while the article is true, I can safely ignore it because it is not meaningful. Not sure how much you know about agriculture and…

> Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation. I'm honestly kind of shocked to see someone admit that this is their intention in so few words.

What is he/she admitting? Other than they feel there are numerous reasons to keep the Amazon, whether or not the lungs, is not enough of a negative to not

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#133

Post by UnFleshedOne »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #40
BurningFrog wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This type of articles is the last thing we need right now We always need the truth. If your agenda can't handle the truth, it's maybe not that great to begin with.

It might make you feel good to write that, but there are much bigger lies being told. For example, tons of people believe that CO2 released by human activity does not cause global warming, and tons of people are promoting that idea. Arguing over just how much photosynthesis the Amazon is responsible for seems like a stupid article in light of that. Perhaps we can be selective over what we argue about and what we pay…

The reason it is bad is that you will lose control of it. Even if you have a handle on the truth now you will lose it if lying for the sake of narrative is expected and widespread and nuanced discussion is suppressed to avoid hurting you cause.

What you lose is ability to detect when it is time to change the cause (because it is fixed or something else even worse comes up or unintended consequences are uncovered).

It is akin to setting a course and then closing your eyes as to avoid any distractions on the way.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#134

Post by [deleted] »

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #118
jstummbillig wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly naive in a reality, where the POTUS can contradict himself on social media – with traceable evidence dating back often not more than a week – and absolutely nothing coming of it. Right now, when it comes to public opinion and action, volume clearly beats a good signal/noise ratio. This is not an isolated issue, this happens all around the globe. Populism is on the rise. Simple beats true. Yes, you…

You can't fight populism with populism because main draw of populism is an assertion that "everything you suspected about those people is correct, you are not doing anything wrong, all your problems are the fault of elites and all those sacrifices they want you to make are not needed, I have 3 simple fixes that would solve everything without any hardship or change whatsoever". When the core of your message is the opp…

[deleted]

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#135

Post by dahdum »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #40
BurningFrog wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This type of articles is the last thing we need right now We always need the truth. If your agenda can't handle the truth, it's maybe not that great to begin with.

It might make you feel good to write that, but there are much bigger lies being told. For example, tons of people believe that CO2 released by human activity does not cause global warming, and tons of people are promoting that idea. Arguing over just how much photosynthesis the Amazon is responsible for seems like a stupid article in light of that. Perhaps we can be selective over what we argue about and what we pay…

We shouldn’t burn the Amazon down, but the amount of effort we should expend in trying to prevent that is absolutely important, and articles like this help shape the assignment of resources.

Fighting climate change requires using limited resources (taxes, labor, public empathy, etc.), squandering them on useless projects (like the plastic straw ban) hurts the overall cause.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#137

Post by dahdum »

gambiting wrote: post #53
pdonis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually) The global average temperature has been higher than that in the past, and there was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Yes, but the temperature rose to those levels over millenia, not just hundreds of years. Ultimately, life on Earth will adapt - it's just that we might not survive long enough to witness the adaptation.

I'm curious how you picture the scenarios in which humanity doesn’t survive even +10F average over the next 200 years? Let’s also say a population of several billion.

I see the sentiment often, even in journalism, and I don’t see a realistic path even absent the inevitable new technology.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#138

Post by blablabla123 »

partialrecall wrote: post #24
vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

> Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative.

Yeah but some narratives of the truth can become absurd. And so is this article. The problem right now is not an undersupply of O2 but an oversupply of CO2. In that sense the Amazon is actually part of the earth's lung. Unfortunately the article leaves out the information to which proportion forest contributes as CO2 sink. And also that alternative uses of the area might turn it actually into a CO2 source. That's maybe not intentional but not exactly relevant and therefore misleading.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#139

Post by ehvatum »

strainer wrote: post #125
partialrecall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

But its not a falsehood to call the Amazon "lungs of the Earth" - its an illustration of the fact that the Amazon, until perhaps recently has been the "largest residual terrestrial carbon sink on the planet"[1] The article opens with this headline which is false: "Humans could burn every living thing on the planet and still not dent its oxygen supply." If every living thing was burnt, the planet would cease to resupp…

If every living thing was burnt, the planet would cease to resupply oxygen and most of the free oxygen reserves in the atmosphere and oceans would be consumed through geological processes

Over what timescale? If you burned every speck of organic matter on the planet, and then you came back in 10,000 years, how much O2 would be in the atmosphere? The article under discussion seems to suggest about 20%.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#140

Post by Xixi »

mikepurvis wrote: post #116
Xixi wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photosynthesis: 6CO2 + 6H2O → C6H12O6 + 6O2 In English: 6 carbon dioxide molecules and 6 water molecules become 1 glucose molecule and 6 dioxygen molecules. So for each CO2 molecule in, there is one O2 molecule out. Now it's entirely possible that some of the O in O2 comes from the H2O molecules. At most half of it if I know how to count up to twelve. Edited for clarity.

And then the glucose is what becomes the building block for cellulose, lignin, etc, right?

And amino acids [1], and anything organic synthesized by plants, through many many intermediary steps. But I am neither a biologist nor a chemist, so please do not take my word for it, I may be wrong.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_synthesis

Post reply on HN