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

Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

snowbrains.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 283 posts

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#131

Post by ohyeshedid »

trhway wrote: post #50
seanwilson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you view 7.5 billion humans as being too many people, what are your views on the 70 billion farm animals we have?

isn't the 70B of farm animals just a part of the "7.5B humans" problem? Anyway, i think that it is a crying shame that we're still farming animals instead of growing artificial meat. Once we finally have artificial meat and thus stop killing sentient beings, i think that would result in a great leap in our conscience, empathy, etc. - it will unleash a great deal of human mental development with natural results in soc…

Every time I see discussions like this I never see thoughts on what to do with all those animals.

What do you do with the 70B animals we're no longer consuming?

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#132

Post by gordaco »

I saw that photo a few days ago. It's honestly one of the most beautiful images I've ever seen in many years. That contrast between the city at the front and natural elements at the back, with that lighting (the Everest is at the north of Kathmandu, so it looks like a sunset), creates an incredible scene.

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#133

Post by hoseja »

tarkin2 wrote: post #81
mmaunder wrote: post #9

This is why we need less humans on this planet. No one says that, because having as many kids as you like seems to be considered a basic human right. But imagine Earth with a stable 10% of our current population. Clean, abundant, and without the catastrophic extinction event already underway.

Humans emit different levels of pollution. Your rich cheap-airline flying, consumerist car owner will emit far more than many families in the developing world.

And neither will even approach within several orders of magnitude of Chinese shipping and factories.

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#135

Post by teruakohatu »

zapita wrote: post #104
teruakohatu wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the tragedy of the commons. The only way to change it is for local/state/national governments to remove the tragedy.

But nowadays private interests can cross international borders with ease, while governments cannot.

A polluting factory has to exist somewhere.

Edit: I am getting a lot of down votes so let me clarify: if external costs are not internalised, humans will ignore it.

Internalising the cost does not even need to mean tax. Many clothing brands in my country, even the budget brands (think Walmart), have been pressured by consumers into using more ethical factories. The same could be done by forcing companies to disclose what factories they use and the factory carbon footprint.

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#136

Post by TeMPOraL »

ElKrist wrote: post #63
acslater00 wrote: post #46

It's amazing and wonderful how much environmental damage seems to be recovering. Air pollution is down, carbon emissions are down as much as 17%, fish and sharks are repopulating shorelines and beaches - and to think, all it took was the most severe public health crisis in 100 years, a catastrophic global recession, and an overpowering wave of human misery and death

Another point to balance the "how much environmental damage seems to be recovering": CO2 in the atmosphere has a long inertia. The (reduction of) emissions in the past few months will not have any effect on the global warming for a few decades. Basically in the short/mid-term, CO2 emissions are accumulated to previous emissions, not replacing them

This only shows that, while CO₂ concentrations are the dominant control variable in the question of our long-term survival, the overall health of the environment is influenced by many, many more things, especially short-term. Now it is especially clear that protecting the environment and mitigating the climate crisis are two different, and only partially aligned efforts. Frequently, they're in opposition - which is why it's extra important not to confuse them.

The example I tend to use is plastic pollution. Interventions like switching from single-use plastic bags and bottles to reusable woven bags and glass bottles may very well help with the amount of plastics (and microplastics) present in the environment, but they're also a climate disaster, because plastic bags and bottles are ridiculously efficient to make at scale. And so here, I also worry that despite the environment taking a break from us during COVID-19, this will turn out to be a huge step back climate-wise - as soon we'll have to start rebuilding, and there will be less money and will around to fund R&D and deployment of less carbon-intensive solutions.

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#137

Post by akie »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #120
zapita wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But nowadays private interests can cross international borders with ease, while governments cannot.

Which means large corporations get to influence policies, even without any lobbying. "Dear senator, what do you mean those environmental protection regulations apply to us? The regulations of the neighbour country $x, that also invited us to build our 10 000 jobs worth plant on their soil, are nowhere near as onerous. We might need to take them up on their offer. Perhaps at least you can cut us a tax break?"

"Well, dear corporation, if you want to sell your products to our citizens, you have to play by our rules. We'll let you know that your direct competitor already agreed to these rules yesterday."

Re: Mount Everest is visible from Kathmandu for first time in living memory

#139

Post by ohyeshedid »

kruczek wrote: post #99
vnchr wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure how to interpret your directive (“we need less humans...” “10% of our current population”) without deep disgust. Your critique of others’ presumption of rights as humans clashes with your ideal where 90% of humans lack even the right to live. Most appalling is that this world view might be treated as anything less than macabre.

I see no macabre at all in these statements. I don't think anyone was talking about taking away the right to live from 90% of population. It is enough to limit number of children born and population will naturally decrease.

Birth rates, at least in the US, have been on the decline without needing to enact laws limiting reproduction. I'm curious what the people suggesting such thought about it when China did it.
Post reply on HN