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

Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#141

Post by Grimm1 »

hnnameblah365 wrote: post #140
Grimm1 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I'd have to grant you anything other than the human perspective matters most first and you've already assumed it does where as I remain unconvinced. You made a pretty out there statement and I provided what is in all likely hood the common opinion. I think the burden is on you here if you want people not to believe humans, of which I assume you and I are a part of, and our perspectives matter the most. Unti…

I agree that most people are unquestioning anthropocentrists and that itself is fine. I disagree that it's the responsibility of everything else on the planet to meet us at the table. It should be humanity's job to close the communication gap. Consider it an act of benevolence if you must. I don't view it as a deficiency in other species' ability to communicate. It's a deficiency in our ability to listen. The reefs a…

We've been in a population decline for a while. | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-29/global....

Quick edit: That article is just to backup my comment about population decline, I don't really agree with the article's opinion to ramp up births.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#142

Post by hnnameblah365 »

Grimm1 wrote: post #141
hnnameblah365 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that most people are unquestioning anthropocentrists and that itself is fine. I disagree that it's the responsibility of everything else on the planet to meet us at the table. It should be humanity's job to close the communication gap. Consider it an act of benevolence if you must. I don't view it as a deficiency in other species' ability to communicate. It's a deficiency in our ability to listen. The reefs a…

We've been in a population decline for a while. | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-29/global... . Quick edit: That article is just to backup my comment about population decline, I don't really agree with the article's opinion to ramp up births.

I didn't know, thank you for sharing!

> If you think the world is overpopulated and has serious environmental problems, you might welcome this news.

It me

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

Grimm1 wrote: post #141
hnnameblah365 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that most people are unquestioning anthropocentrists and that itself is fine. I disagree that it's the responsibility of everything else on the planet to meet us at the table. It should be humanity's job to close the communication gap. Consider it an act of benevolence if you must. I don't view it as a deficiency in other species' ability to communicate. It's a deficiency in our ability to listen. The reefs a…

We've been in a population decline for a while. | https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-29/global... . Quick edit: That article is just to backup my comment about population decline, I don't really agree with the article's opinion to ramp up births.

That article is...wow.

> But as my colleague Robin Hanson has pointed out, dwindling populations create their own inexorable logic.

“have their own inexorable logic” seems to stand in for “cam be scaremongered via naive assumption that trends extend to infinity”.

> If the Japanese population shrinks by half, to 65 million or so, what’s to stop it from declining to 30 million? Or 20 million?

The same negative feedback pressure that is why the runaway growth that was the concern when people projected then-current trends forward ~50-60 years ago didn’t happen, either.

It’s much more plausible that global human population is approaching the horizontal asymptote of a logistic curve than that the slowing of global growth points to a shift to permanent population loss that would be an existential threat.

One obvious factor: strong non-family economic support systems are one of the strongest predictors of low natural population growth, but shrinking populations strain thlse systems, reducing their long-term viability. There are many more negative feedback mechanisms at work, too.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#144

Post by hnick »

paulcole wrote: post #134
hnick wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Tragedy of the Commons is a rebuttal to this.

What do you think people should do?

It doesn't matter if someone uses resources responsibly if someone else comes along and then uses up what's left. People defer power to higher levels - government, companies, religion, culture, education, etc. Real change involves people but will have to be driven by one of these if you want entire populations of people to go along.

Climate change is unfortunate since it means getting many countries working together, and some may see a benefit in doing nothing.

As to what people can do? I'm not sure there is an answer. A technological solution would be great but isn't assured, voting is a problem in that you already need a lot of people thinking the same way, and leading a good lifestyle will assuage personal guilt but move the needle very little, so I think it's worthwhile but not a solution. I am not sure it will make a difference as you say when others will step in and consume what you left on the table.

My opinion is that nothing meaningful will happen until we see some obvious signs of distress and even then we'll be lucky if people scramble for a solution. We are starting to see problematic weather patterns, reef bleaching, and other evidence but since the problem is statistical in nature we always get people who say such events are not necessarily an indicator of a problem. Broader scientific literacy in the community to understand the fundamentals involved would take a generation and would have to be led from the top down meaning we get back to the same issue of bringing an entire country on board.

So I don't have an answer, but I don't think someone always needs an answer to point out something isn't working. Regulation would work within a country, but you need to get leadership on board and this is a global problem meaning one country isn't enough. The solution will have to align with selfish interests whether economic or actual survival. My hopes are on cheap green energy and maybe one of the cleaner variants of nuclear but that is more of a faith-based answer than anything. I hope it'll work out but don't know enough to be sure.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#145

Post by SamPatt »

refurb wrote: post #42
bb123 wrote: post #9

This is so incredibly sad, and I feel so helpless that this is slipping through our fingers. I fear I’ll never get a chance to see a coral reef in real life, and it looks almost certain that my children won’t. Is there anything we can do as individuals to help? I tried looking into conservation efforts but it seems like any amount of money we could hope to donate isn’t going to make a drop of difference to sea temper…

Everything I read tells me that it’s too late. Even if we stop all CO2 production tomorrow there will be severe climate change due to the CO2 already released. Seems like the best idea is to just enjoy the time we have left.

"Enjoy the time we have left"

Please. What a joke.

Read the IPCC reports. They are projecting massive increases in the wealth and health of the whole world in all future emissions scenarios.

Some scenarios are just worse than others, but all are better than today.

The world has been improving for centuries. The idea that we need to "enjoy what time we have left" is absolutely insane. It's pseudo-science

Yes, human impacts on the environment cause problems. No, they aren't going to cause human extinction.

Read "Enlightenment Now" or "The Rational Optimist" for some perspective.

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#146

Post by deanCommie »

elevenbits wrote: post #49
deanCommie wrote: post #10

What do climate change denialists think about stories like this? Do they A) Think it's a complete lie/exaggeraiton, and the Barrier Reef will be fine? B) Think it's happening but not because of human activity (a massive die off across thousands of kilometers is totally natural, dude) C) Agree that it's caused by humans, but that it's too late to do anything about (probably true), but that also it's not worth taking a…

I have a different view than captured by your A-E options. 1) The climate, or really the whole earth, has some background rate of change, that itself changes over time. 2) On top of that, there is change, ranging from significant to insignificant depending on the area, caused by humans. 3) This will cause the earth to change at a rate (potentially much) faster than if humans were not here. None of this, to me, repres…

I mean I hear what you're saying and it sounds GREAT. It sounds optimistic. And hopeful.

But it also sounds just Option A. "The threat is exaggerated".

For vast amount of land in Canada and Russia to become habitable, vast amounts of land that currently house HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people will become UN-inhabitable.

Either due to sea level rise, or from just heat.

I understand maybe on the scale of our civilization we will survive (Maybe), but not before the unnecessary deaths of millions, maybe billions.

Is that worth it to you? Or do you believe that I am being alarmist, and exaggerating the grave threat?

Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds

#147

Post by npunt »

ghastmaster wrote: post #137
npunt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article implies temperature is the culprit but I was under the impression the problem is more ocean acidification caused by co2, which happens to also cause temperature rise. While temperatures have fluctuated over the millennia, the last time co2 was this high (400+ppm) was maybe 30 million years ago: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ Another thing to remember is the tendency for us t…

The prevailing theory is that ocean acidification (OA) and global temperature are tied to atmospheric CO2 levels(as illustrated in image 1 in my OP). Given that relationship, any historical change in one would correspond to a change in the other.

Maybe I’m missing something but I don’t see anything about ocean acidification in those links, only temp/CO2 correlation, and the chart of ice core data only goes up to 280ppm CO2. Since we’re at 420 now yet we have had temperatures this high before, maybe that historic relationship can’t be relied upon (as humans weren’t there the last time) and another explanation is required? See sibling comment re rate of change and time lag for species to adapt.
Post reply on HN