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

Holocene Extinction

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 136 posts

Re: Holocene Extinction

#51

Post by new2628 »

makerofspoons wrote: post #32
jarpschop wrote: post #4

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!

This is a frequent topic of discussion at https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/ What happens to the economy when a significant portion of society wakes up to the reality of the biosphere collapsing? Will it happen soon or when the oceans are dead or the pollinating insects extinct?

If it happens gradually, we may never wake up to it. For all I know, our biosphere is an already collapsed version of yesterday's, yet we usually see it more as a better version of tomorrow's.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#52

Post by CalRobert »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #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-ind…

100 years may be optimistic.

And I don't think young people or children today deserve an agonizing life watching their loved ones, their own children, perhaps, starving to death or dying in a water war.

Also you don't need to be a hunter gatherer to not rape the planet.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#53

Post by derivativethrow »

mehrdadn wrote: post #2

"Fun" statistic: in less than half a century, we've gotten rid of around 60% of Earth’s wildlife . [1] [1] https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/living-planet-report-2018

This is an incorrect interpretation of the report. Or at least, the way it's stated is misleading. We have not "gotten rid of" 60% of wildlife on Earth. What has actually happened is (since the 1970s), the average reduction per species is 60%. Some species lost more than 60%, some (far) less.

This is still bad news, but I feel it's important to point out that we haven't (for example), lost 60% of all species on the planet.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#54

Post by jungletime »

rbg246 wrote: post #48
jungletime wrote: post #39

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.

You are here, so obviously you feel "good" enough and worthy to exist. With population control its always the "others" need to be eliminated. No one wants to start with themselves. Its an extremely selfish position really. Its also not very logically viable, since those that feel the world is over populated and kill themselves, will just be selected out of the gene pool. Leaving only those that want to live, procreate and prosper behind.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#55

Post by Koshkin »

GuiA wrote: post #5
CM30 wrote: 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…

Heh? Sentient life and the civilisations it creates are part of nature, where would the incompatibility stem from? If you’re talking about the phenomenon of some species depleting the resources of their environment, harming their population in the long run, that’s not a phenomenon unique to humans.

Well, if by "incompatibility" we mean something that leads to destruction, then why not? Destruction and death are also natural phenomena.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#56

Post by new2628 »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #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-ind…

This attitude is similar to a smoker saying after decades of smoking "I don't regret anything, I enjoyed it".

Re: Holocene Extinction

#57

Post by new2628 »

ericmay wrote: post #42
baron_harkonnen wrote: post #23

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 certainly believe Bill Gates could provide 12 billion people with Windows licenses.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#58

Post by Nasrudith »

titzer wrote: post #14
jostmey wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the more reason to focus on space travel to expand the our resources!

There are some fun sci-fi explanations for the Fermi Paradox. One of them is that no one likes neighbors that break out of their box, since they tend to ruin everything, like we ruined our planet. So coalitions develop that instantly blast civilizations that try to expand.

That sounds like a bad moralistic fable. Neighbors advanced enough to instantly blast expanding civilizations that don't expand? If they don't expand why the hell would they care about others outside their domain? When compatible planets are so rare that essentially being able to survive in space indefinetly is essentially a logistical prerequisite to expand in the first place. They might compete over such viable luxuries if they find others in range good canidates but a radical antiexpansion ideology and said capabilities is deeply inconsistent.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#59

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

new2628 wrote: post #56
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #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-ind…

This attitude is similar to a smoker saying after decades of smoking "I don't regret anything, I enjoyed it".

Or an astronaut who willingly goes to space, even though the increased cosmic radiation exposure, increases their risk of cancer.

Re: Holocene Extinction

#60

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

CalRobert wrote: post #52
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #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-ind…

100 years may be optimistic. And I don't think young people or children today deserve an agonizing life watching their loved ones, their own children, perhaps, starving to death or dying in a water war. Also you don't need to be a hunter gatherer to not rape the planet.

> watching their loved ones, their own children, perhaps, starving to death or dying in a water war.

Sadly, this was close to the default condition throughout much of human history. It is only recently, with the benefits of industrialization and globalization that we have made that kind of thing much rarer than it was.

Post reply on HN