Live data from Hacker News

Holocene Extinction

en.wikipedia.org

21–30 of 136 posts

Re: Holocene Extinction

#21

This way of living, with that many people on the planet is not sustainable. We are on a runaway train to extinction and we want it to go faster. The economy!

Are there any resources for determining which US politicians support environmentalism (specifically meaningful, evidence-based policies as opposed to vapid virtue signalling) and/or where the "battleground" states are? I guess in general I'm looking to get involved more in climate politics, but I don't know where to start.

> meaningful, evidence-based policies as opposed to vapid virtue signalling

You would need to define what set of policies you consider which first.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#22
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but who’s willing to get off at the next station, not the passengers who’ve been on it from the start and not the passengers who just got on and are getting a taste.

Technology really is the only way out.

With very few exceptions, any affordances technology brings are consumed by humanity's insatiable appetite before they can benefit the environment. If technology figures out how to make $X more energy efficient, we just run more $Xs such that the (trajectory of) energy consumption is constant.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#23

This way of living, with that many people on the planet is not sustainable. We are on a runaway train to extinction and we want it to go faster. The economy!

When people talk about climate, resources, ecology etc. people are typically quite optimistic until you bring up the idea of "sustainability". The typical reply is something like "oh, we'll get there one day, it's certainly possible in the future.." but the idea of that sustainability is something we can put off is rather absurd, in the most technical sense.

Sustainability is the border between two ways of life. The side we're on, is by definition, unsustainable. It literally cannot be maintained. When you are in a state that no one on earth would argue can be maintained, pessimism and existential concern should be the default, predominate way of thinking.

If a subsistence farmer needed 1000 lbs of potatoes to feed his family each year, but was only capable of growing 700 this year, and was estimably 650 for next, you would be deeply concerned. Even if his estimate was 850 for next year, you would still bet that he was not going to survive. But this is how we live our lives, the sustainability is often talked about as some sort of moonshot goal.

The irony is that we do scream "the economy!" but when you think of the basic logic of sustainability there is the one side where you cannot survive on your current path, and the other where you produce a surplus of what you need. If our farmer expects to grow 1200 lbs of potatoes he can survive unexpected events, sell his potatoes to a neighbor, expand his family etc. Clearly the real economy only exists on the other side of sustainable.

If the economy is unsustainable, in any situation other than the world we live in, anyone would clearly state that such an economy is an illusion, since by living in an unsustainable way you have less than you need to survive, let alone enough to worry about what you want.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#26
post #3

This makes me wonder if perhaps sentient life/civilisation is simply incompatible with nature by default. That doesn't make the former bad or mean that we shouldn't try and preserve the nature world, just that I suspect any species that evolves to be like humanity is probably going to have a similar effect on its ecosystem. Any alien world with a sentient species might also be in a similar situation for many of the s…

You don’t need to have intelligence. Intelligence is just a form of fitness, but other species have had ecological hyper-fitness before (look at what happened with rabbits in Australia). All of them display the same behavior: massive growth and then overshoot and collapse. We’re exactly on the same path right now. I don’t think is very plausible to make an inhospitable planet livable.

> Intelligence is just a form of fitness

It's not _just_ a form of fitness--intelligence makes us aware of the trajectory that we are on; we know what will happen, and (I know this sounds crazy but hear me out) we could do something about it if we wanted to. So intelligence is important, but it doesn't make up for our utter indifference and willful ignorance.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology really is the only way out.

With very few exceptions, any affordances technology brings are consumed by humanity's insatiable appetite before they can benefit the environment. If technology figures out how to make $X more energy efficient, we just run more $Xs such that the (trajectory of) energy consumption is constant.

A big exception is energy. Net electricity usage per capita has leveled out or declined in the developed world since around the year 2000.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locat...

Re: Holocene Extinction

#28
post #3

This makes me wonder if perhaps sentient life/civilisation is simply incompatible with nature by default. That doesn't make the former bad or mean that we shouldn't try and preserve the nature world, just that I suspect any species that evolves to be like humanity is probably going to have a similar effect on its ecosystem. Any alien world with a sentient species might also be in a similar situation for many of the s…

Ecosystems are not exactly stable systems.

You don't need sentience to cause imbalance and breakdown - https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/trophic-ca...

Sentience is like anything else. Just a tool to that makes the species efficient at doing X. When a herd of buffalo gets slightly too efficient at grazing or a a pride of lions gets slightly too efficient at taking down prey things can unravel.

But after the breakdowns and collapses the big mystery is why things reboot.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#29
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exactly. If animals with intelligence didn’t exist there would still be nothing to keep an imbalanced species from taking over and wreaking destruction upon other species.

Yet billions of years in, until we arrived, there was no failure to be sustainable. We're the first species to potentially cause a global extinction event (arguably we already did)

Isn't sustainability only that the system keeps existing? This is the 6th event, and even if this one is caused by us, Earth has gone through massive changes before.

The system will keep existing even if we erase ourselves (along with a long list of other species), but other life will keep on existing even after we're gone until our solar system ceases.

It's up to us whether we want to keep existing or not.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#30

This way of living, with that many people on the planet is not sustainable. We are on a runaway train to extinction and we want it to go faster. The economy!

It's not the number of people, that's a fallacy. (See: Das Kapital vol 1, and http://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp7.htm)

We have more than enough resources on the planet to feed everyone(0)(1)(2)(3)(4), it is the distribution of it that is the problem.

Large amounts of food are wasted(5)(6)(7), that is a problem posed by our economic system and something that we can fix -- something we should try to fix, without going straight to Eugenics (as Malthus did, and many white nationalists do), or population control.

(0): https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/the-world-produces-en...

(1): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Alread...

(2): https://medium.com/@jeremyerdman/we-produce-enough-food-to-f...

(3): https://www.huffpost.com/entry/world-hunger_b_1463429

(4): https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-a...

(5): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41173771_Food_Secur...

(6): http://www.fao.org/food-loss-and-food-waste/flw-data/en/

(7): https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13364178

Post reply on HN