Live data from Hacker News

Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

bbc.com

241–250 of 279 posts

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#241
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.

So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.

No not that, there's a very strong negative correlation between birth rate and development. The more a society develops, the lower its birth rate. Down to well below replacement rate of 2.1, for instance in the US (1.7), Canada (1.5), Japan (1.42), Finland (1.41). Without immigration those populations would dwindle in just a few generations. [1]

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-h...

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#242
post #184

This proves that we need a system change. Covid made that, we change from a system with the objective of producing stuff to a system with the goal of saving lives. People of HN should take a look of the clube of rome book "limits of growth". GND will not save us beacause it will demand energy and resources to swap all the infraestructure. At most developed countries will shift their enviromental cost to the poor ones

Let me know how your life is going when every business around you has shut down.

If the objective of the system is to produce stuff you need to think in large scale. When we do that we favor big corporations and as you say business around you shut down. So change this system will help to solve your problem to. How do you think we can solve the problem you pointed at?

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#244
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.

No not that, there's a very strong negative correlation between birth rate and development. The more a society develops, the lower its birth rate. Down to well below replacement rate of 2.1, for instance in the US (1.7), Canada (1.5), Japan (1.42), Finland (1.41). Without immigration those populations would dwindle in just a few generations. [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-h...

This is not a law of nature, it is history as it unfolded in the twentieth century. We don't know if that'll continue to hold or not.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#246

Well, I'd welcome the idea of once a year total shutdown for a couple weeks: no cars, no economic activity, except maybe hospitals and other infra. That would be a sort of worldwide retreat. I still remember how clean the air felt the first time the us did a hard shutdown (empty roads, people were scared). I'm sure the capitalists will hate the idea to halt the factory for 2 out of 52 weeks.

Nobody would like to be locked at home. No restaurants and no travel… for what? 2 weeks aren't enough to slow down the warming.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#248
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.

No not that, there's a very strong negative correlation between birth rate and development. The more a society develops, the lower its birth rate. Down to well below replacement rate of 2.1, for instance in the US (1.7), Canada (1.5), Japan (1.42), Finland (1.41). Without immigration those populations would dwindle in just a few generations. [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-h...

And the more a country develops, the more resources they consume per capita. One individual in a developed country consumes orders of magnitude more than one in a less developed country.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're no longer invasive. Almost every wild animal on every continent has evolved an innate fear of humans as a defense mechanism. We have been the apex predator across the world for a long long time and animals have evolved to deal with this fact. Only in small islands cut off from humanity for eons will you find wild animals that feel no fear against humans.

- Non-native organism to most places around the world: check - Negative environmental effect: check We are an invasive species. Our species originated in Africa, then as we expanded we negatively affected our environment worldwide.

So every species on the face of the earth that ever expanded its territory is invasive? That's basically every living thing on the face of the earth.

Make no mistake, almost every living thing that expanded its territory had a negative effect on that territory that was expanded into which will make every species "invasive" under your hair brained extreme technical definition.

Most humans can catch the drift of what I'm trying to convey though. I'll spell it out for you because you seem to be a savant... too intelligent to understand the obvious subtleties of normal human communication.

Invasive species only refer to a subset of species under temporal conditions meaning the current ecosystem which the species invades has not YET adapted to the invasion. If all animals have died/evolved and changed to accommodate for the situation the species is no longer invasive it is the status quo.

If what I said above isn't part of the definition then it makes every freaking thing on the face of the earth invasive. So it's unspoken but Obviously invasive refers to a temporal phenomenon.

Because your a savant too intelligent for mure mortals like me, let me give you an example why what I said above isn't included in the wikipedia definition. Think of the word 'thief.' If a child steals some candy from the store he is a thief. If the child grows up to be 50 years old and never steals anything again for the rest of his life typical humans no longer call him a thief. This means thief refers to a temporal phenomenon and most humans are able to recognize this even though webster's dictionary doesn't include it in the definition. We humans call this "obvious."

But someone like you who can't figure out what typical people find "obvious" must mean that your beyond human. A person of such extraordinary logic that subtleties of human language are irrelevant to you. That or your just making up logic to support some agenda, because it's utterly clear what I'm talking about.

Also throwaway usernames are against the rules in HN.

Re: Climate change: US emissions in 2020 in biggest fall since WWII

#250
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not that, there's a very strong negative correlation between birth rate and development. The more a society develops, the lower its birth rate. Down to well below replacement rate of 2.1, for instance in the US (1.7), Canada (1.5), Japan (1.42), Finland (1.41). Without immigration those populations would dwindle in just a few generations. [1] [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-h...

This is not a law of nature, it is history as it unfolded in the twentieth century. We don't know if that'll continue to hold or not.

Yea, but it’s still an open question when or if this stabilizes. A global population of between something like 100 million to 10 billion could sustain an advanced technical society capable of innovation. But, where slowly oscillating between say 1 and 2 billion people would be fine, regular massive population crashes could represent a great filter which generally prevents interstellar civilizations.
Post reply on HN