Live data from Hacker News

Holocene Extinction

en.wikipedia.org

41–50 of 136 posts

Re: Holocene Extinction

#41

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.

First look at how their campaigns are funded. You will not find any meaningful action from politicians who are dependent on support from billionaires or powerful corporations. Then I would look at whether they are committed to supporting the Green New Deal and how their policies are rated by climate groups like the Sunrise Movement. This has helped me learn more about climate policy in general, and has made me more able to distinguish platitudes from serious proposals to address this crisis.

My favorite writer on the subject is Naomi Klein. I think her work is a good resource for learning more about the politics of the climate crisis.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#42

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…

I agree. And the other thing too is nobody wants to hear about the prospect of overpopulation. In fact, I think most of our problems stem from this.

Bill Gates, for example, says we can "feed 12 billion people". Ok sure, but at what cost to the planet and our quality of life? Others say "the whole population could fit in an area the size of Texas". Or they look at Hong Kong density and say "it's possible". But I don't think that is sustainable or desirable.

When people think of picturesque countries like Norway, they often forget that those countries have low population densities, which allow them to leave parts of nature untouched.

Another issue that arises is that the global economy is built on a forever growth model. We're kind of stuck with an economic house of cards standing on the back of continued population growth.

/Bit of rambling here.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technology really is the only way out.

No. Political will is the only way out. Technology alone is not going to help when politics is geared to subsidize dirty fuel, permit polluting industry and avoid economic interventions that would help, like carbon taxes.

I think political technology is the way out. Right now we can't coordinate political will efficiently enough. Nations aren't powerful enough in a global capitalist world economy and even our best flavours of representational democracy doesn't have enough integrity to make the right decisions.

"It doesn't matter if I take the cost for changing my ways if I can't trust the others to not eat the benefit."

Re: Holocene Extinction

#44

Humans can have a beneficial impact on the environment too, by terraforming and making the land more productive. There's some evidence that the Amazon mix of fruiting tree and nut species were selected for by humans. "The Supposedly Pristine, Untouched Amazon Rainforest Was Actually Shaped By Humans" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/pristine-untou... Since some people us this as political grounds for eug…

> Humans can have a beneficial impact on the environment too

They can but they (mostly) do not. And the best way to have a beneficial impact on environment in the current situation would be "simply" to reduce its numbers. Unfortunately that's not so easy.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#45
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a first step, vote blue in November.

Joe Biden's climate plan would not keep us below 1.5C of warming so if climate is your #1 issue (it is mine), then third party is the only option.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#46
post #12
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…

> That might be why space travel is so important to focus on too. Exponential growth does not work. In the limit you can only expand in a sphere at the speed of light: O(n^3), so exponential growth is coming to a halt, one way or another, in this universe. Going to other planets ultimate solves nothing. You either reach homeostasis with your limited resources or you don't, which means you will reach the end of your r…

Yeah, the reason to go to space isn't to get a (fictional) free pass from reaching homeostasis, it's to give you a larger number of resources at homeostasis.

A trillion humans is inherently cooler than a billion humans. More art, more science, more bigger projects achievable through collective efforts.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Political will is the only way out. Technology alone is not going to help when politics is geared to subsidize dirty fuel, permit polluting industry and avoid economic interventions that would help, like carbon taxes.

Technology makes cleaner solutions cheaper, rendering all that irrelevant.

Over time, perhaps. But we don't have time. Where are the low-methane cows? The low-carbon flights? When will cement pollute less? Why are we still generating 61% of power with coal and gas [0]? Part of the answer to all of these things is that there is a lot invested in maintaining the status quo. Airlines getting away with tax-free fuel isn't a technology problem. How long, realistically, until any significant proportion of current meat eaters switch to lab-grown meat or other alternative? And how much political capital will alternatives need to accumulate to take on the meat industry?

Sure, technology can help with any of these problems but it'll take forever as long as governments only pay lip service to wanting to change things.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Methods...

Re: Holocene Extinction

#48

Humans can have a beneficial impact on the environment too, by terraforming and making the land more productive. There's some evidence that the Amazon mix of fruiting tree and nut species were selected for by humans. "The Supposedly Pristine, Untouched Amazon Rainforest Was Actually Shaped By Humans" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/pristine-untou... Since some people us this as political grounds for eug…

May I kindly ask, why do you feel the need to jump out and defend the human species as also being good in the face of what is described in the article?

I am genuinely interested in understanding what motivates this reaction.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#49
Many times there is a heavy dose of misanthropy in these environmental discussions. Phrases like "humanity is a virus", etc.

I would like to share a different perspective.There is a saying, "It is better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."

Even if humanity overburdens the planet and goes extinct in the next 100 years, I prefer what we have now, than if we had remained hunter-gatherers or pre-industrial.

We have spread out to every corner of the world. With irrigation, farming, heating, air-conditioning, etc, we have transformed the most inhospitable habitats into thriving cities. Members of our species have even set foot on the moon.

We have improved the quality of life for members of our species, especially the poorest. If you had to be born as a female child to a random mother, there is no other time in the humanity's existence where you would be better off than now.

We invented language that can express the deepest and most profound thoughts to the person standing next to us, and invented writing that can encode it in a form that can be understood millennia later, and invented telecommunication that can transmit it instantly anywhere in the world.

Our concept of the "universe" has grown. It is no longer the local grassland or forest. It is no longer a steppe or continent, or even our globe. Our concept of the universe includes solar systems and galaxies and super-clusters, and even the possibilities of a multi-verse.

All animals try to control their environment, but we have learned to do so on an unprecedented scale. We learned early how to control the large fauna that could eat us. Most humans walk freely about, safe from large predators. We also, much later, learned how to control the small predators - the bacteria and viruses.

We have also learned how to control ourselves. We learned how to control reproduction. We can keep from getting pregnant when we have sex, if we desire, or get pregnant without having sex. We can organize into communities and coordinate and cooperate at a scale and sophistication beyond any other animal.

So, if this time is the time that we have ultimately outstripped the earth's capacity to support us (unlike the many, many false alarms in the past), then I say, cheers to humanity: we have lived, we have loved, we have laughed, we have wept, we have left our mark in our corner of the universe.

Yes, let us try to develop technology and do things that help ensure humanity can stay like this for much, much longer. But let us not disparage humanity and all we have accomplished.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#50
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree. And the other thing too is nobody wants to hear about the prospect of overpopulation. In fact, I think most of our problems stem from this. Bill Gates, for example, says we can "feed 12 billion people". Ok sure, but at what cost to the planet and our quality of life? Others say "the whole population could fit in an area the size of Texas". Or they look at Hong Kong density and say "it's possible". But I don'…

I tend to agree, but remember that we need to include livestock in the population counts of mouths to feed.
Post reply on HN