Bird populations declining fast across North America • Hacker News Board

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#181

Post by throwawaylinux » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 2:56 AM UTC

toqy wrote: post #178

throwawaylinux wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This illustrates why it's a terrible shame that the overpopulation topic has effectively been silenced and demonized in science conservationism and environmentalism. I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, let alone a much larger one. They'll angrily insist that the earth's "carrying capacity" is 20, 50, 1…

> I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life. > aren't all sudden…

> Arguing about how many people the earth can sustain is pointless without defining what kind of life you expect people to be living. How many billions can capitalism + western rates of consumption sustain and for how long vs a simpler way of life.

Not really, 10 billion "simpler way of life" people have huge catastrophic footprints as well. Farming being a major one. But the point was not to come to a precise figure and metrics, it's an unhinged kneejerk reaction to any suggestion that the population is not sustainable. Which it is not.

> and neither are all the people deemed excess by your world view,

This false ad hominem suggests you are one of the people my original post refers to.

_My_ world view deems no person "excess". It acknowledges a simple reality that our population is not sustainable and reducing it or limiting growth is critically important for the environment and makes all other environmental efforts simpler or less severe.

> which is probably the part people get riled up about.

No, it's not. They get unhinged about the idea that population is a serious environmental problem at its current levels let alone increased levels. The (baseless and unfounded) claims they make being that it's not a problem "because earth's carrying capacity is 50 billion people" or other absurd statements along those lines.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#182

Post by Groxx » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 2:58 AM UTC

photochemsyn wrote: post #129

karaterobot wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disagree with this. According to this article, birds aren't dying off because people choose the almighty dollar, they're dying because they smash into windows or are hunted by cats. The solution isn't to examine our relationship to abstractions versus reality, it's to put a screen on the window so the bird will notice it in time.

That's not what the original paper says. This is why you want to read the actual scientific paper and not the article about it. The researchers, in the article's text, state: > "Steep declines in North American birds parallel patterns of avian declines emerging globally (14, 15, 22, 24). In particular, depletion of native grassland bird populations in North America, driven by habitat loss and more toxic pesticide use…

It is also just general reading comprehension, as the post begins with what appears to be a fairly accurate summary of the study:

>Experts believe that habitat loss due to agricultural development and intensification is most likely the driving factor.

and then makes recommendations about tinting windows and cats. One does not imply the other.

All of which also mirrors stuff like plastic recycling and water pollution. Individual actions are so incredibly dwarfed by industrial actions that it's almost pointless. We need legislation, not feel-good individual ethics.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#183

Post by throwawaylinux » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 2:59 AM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #179

throwawaylinux wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This illustrates why it's a terrible shame that the overpopulation topic has effectively been silenced and demonized in science conservationism and environmentalism. I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, let alone a much larger one. They'll angrily insist that the earth's "carrying capacity" is 20, 50, 1…

It's not so much the abstract idea of depopulation that has people upset at you, it's that every concrete proposal for getting there involves genocide and suffering.

No it's not that at all actually. It's a plain head-in-sand denial of reality that I'm talking about encountering.

Same kinds of thinking cause the exact same kinds of knee jerk reactions, denialism, conspiracy theories, etc. when you suggest green house gas emissions are not sustainable and should be reduced too.

And I should say that you're wrong about that genocide assertion too. In most of the countries with the highest consumption and environmental footprints, populations are naturally in slight decline on their own. No genocide or suffering needed to reduce populations in those places.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#184

Post by Groxx » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 3:03 AM UTC

throwawaylinux wrote: post #174

photochemsyn wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what the original paper says. This is why you want to read the actual scientific paper and not the article about it. The researchers, in the article's text, state: > "Steep declines in North American birds parallel patterns of avian declines emerging globally (14, 15, 22, 24). In particular, depletion of native grassland bird populations in North America, driven by habitat loss and more toxic pesticide use…

This illustrates why it's a terrible shame that the overpopulation topic has effectively been silenced and demonized in science conservationism and environmentalism. I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, let alone a much larger one. They'll angrily insist that the earth's "carrying capacity" is 20, 50, 1…

Greenhouse (specifically carbon dioxide) specifically might be solved, because trees exist and are pretty good at what they do, but I absolutely do not believe that a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently-healthy world. I think you dramatically underestimate our ability to pollute in small populations. Consider how bad air pollution was in London during the 1700s and 1800s.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#185

Post by jjoonathan » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 3:13 AM UTC

throwawaylinux wrote: post #183

jjoonathan wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the abstract idea of depopulation that has people upset at you, it's that every concrete proposal for getting there involves genocide and suffering.

No it's not that at all actually. It's a plain head-in-sand denial of reality that I'm talking about encountering. Same kinds of thinking cause the exact same kinds of knee jerk reactions, denialism, conspiracy theories, etc. when you suggest green house gas emissions are not sustainable and should be reduced too. And I should say that you're wrong about that genocide assertion too. In most of the countries with the…

You seem quite convinced that you have the carrying capacity argument correct. I can understand why: it's really easy to come up with doomsday arguments of this form. Extrapolate any rising trend against any perceived constraint and bingo bango you have your prophecy. Thing is, people have been doing this since the dawn of history, and they've been spectacularly wrong since the dawn of history. Doomer models just never seem to be nearly as clever as real human beings.

One day the doomers might actually get it right for once. I'm not holding my breath, but even if I were, proactive genocide would be a tough sell.

> populations are naturally in slight decline on their own

I am aware.

> No genocide or suffering needed

That depends entirely on why you think this trend is happening, but if you're willing to accept the trend as it stands then we can probably find common ground.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#186

Post by throwawaylinux » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 3:14 AM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #184

throwawaylinux wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This illustrates why it's a terrible shame that the overpopulation topic has effectively been silenced and demonized in science conservationism and environmentalism. I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, let alone a much larger one. They'll angrily insist that the earth's "carrying capacity" is 20, 50, 1…

Greenhouse (specifically carbon dioxide) specifically might be solved, because trees exist and are pretty good at what they do, but I absolutely do not believe that a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently-healthy world. I think you dramatically underestimate our ability to pollute in small populations. Consider how bad air pollution was in London during the 1700s and 1800s.

I didn't say a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently healthy world. I said if global population was 5% of what it is now, greenhouse gas emissions would practically be a non problem.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#187

Post by throwawaylinux » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 3:17 AM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #185

throwawaylinux wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not that at all actually. It's a plain head-in-sand denial of reality that I'm talking about encountering. Same kinds of thinking cause the exact same kinds of knee jerk reactions, denialism, conspiracy theories, etc. when you suggest green house gas emissions are not sustainable and should be reduced too. And I should say that you're wrong about that genocide assertion too. In most of the countries with the…

You seem quite convinced that you have the carrying capacity argument correct. I can understand why: it's really easy to come up with doomsday arguments of this form. Extrapolate any rising trend against any perceived constraint and bingo bango you have your prophecy. Thing is, people have been doing this since the dawn of history, and they've been spectacularly wrong since the dawn of history. Doomer models just nev…

Complete rubbish.

We're past the sustainable carraying capacity because we have already brought about mass extinction events, irreversible destruction of habitat and environment with our existing population (and it even started when the population was far lower, it's just that it's been accelerating). I have the counter example. There is no "model".

Also it's strange you accuse me of being a spectacularly wrong doomer when you were just now spouting easily disproven doomsaying about genocides. Maybe tone down the ad hominems a little at least while you're sitting in your glass house.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#188

Post by jwmhjwmh » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 3:31 AM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #107

jwmhjwmh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. However, using modern computing and communication technology, it would be possible to run a complex economy with calculations "in-kind". That is, most calculation could be done using the inputs and outputs of millions of processes. Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts.

> using modern computing and communication technology, it would be possible to run a complex economy with calculations "in-kind". No, it wouldn't. It's not a matter of the speed of the computing; it's a matter of the number of information channels available. The amount of information that would need to be processed to run a complex economy goes up exponentially with the size of the economy, but the number of informat…

I'm not sure what you mean by "information channels". Wouldn't a factory mainly just need to communicate its inputs and outputs the computer or computer cluster doing the calculation? Similarly for distribution centers. In particular, would much more information need to be transmitted in a planned economy than in a market economy? Remember that, while there are millions of products in the economy, any given center of production or distribution is unlikely to use more than a few thousand.

I don't think the computation cost scales exponentially. If it did, the decentralized free market computer would not be able to accurately compute the economy. Paul Cockshott claims to have found a planning algorithm with O(n log n) complexity, which is very manageable.

The main problem with free markets is that they lead to extreme inequality and subsequent conflict. A planned economy could distribute the surplus much better.

I disagree that the government should withdraw from the market economy. The government can help alleviate the failures of the market. For one thing, the market is generally short-sighted, while governments can think more long-term. For example, it is my understanding that the Chinese government has invested a lot in solar panel technology and implementation. You would probably agree this is a good thing, given the severity of the climate crisis.

By the way, the following are some of what have informed my opinion here:

- https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2021/06/29/a-critique-of-economi...

- http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.p...

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#189

Post by idontwantthis » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 3:31 AM UTC

Groxx wrote: post #184

throwawaylinux wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This illustrates why it's a terrible shame that the overpopulation topic has effectively been silenced and demonized in science conservationism and environmentalism. I frequently get people becoming wildly irrational and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, let alone a much larger one. They'll angrily insist that the earth's "carrying capacity" is 20, 50, 1…

Greenhouse (specifically carbon dioxide) specifically might be solved, because trees exist and are pretty good at what they do, but I absolutely do not believe that a 95% reduction in population would lead to a consistently-healthy world. I think you dramatically underestimate our ability to pollute in small populations. Consider how bad air pollution was in London during the 1700s and 1800s.

But in the 1700s and 1800s you could leave London and go to the countryside and have very little pollution. That would be wonderful today. Instead we are filling and polluting every space in the world.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#190

Post by nitrogen » Tue, Dec 14, 2021, 3:39 AM UTC

pirate787 wrote: post #162

qqqwerty wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of folks on HN who are trying to solve climate change, myself included. But if you spend enough time in the industry, it becomes apparent that it is incredibly difficult to move the needle without significant government level intervention. For example, no matter how hard you try, there will be no profitable carbon capture venture under our current regulatory regime. Every scheme to sell some sort of…

The free market approach is to tax carbon emissions. Capture the externality of carbon in the economic and pricing system, and you'll unleash innovation and competition to reduce that cost.

This gets repeated so often I've come to believe it's not the right call. We need to think both bigger and smaller, and put the innovation first. We should also be looking at mitigations and adaptations, not just prevention. Is anyone researching ultra-rapid construction techniques to repair infrastructure damaged by flooding? Rapid assembly temporary bridges to evacuate people over swollen rivers? New techniques to raise entire cities like Portland was ages ago? Personal inflatable rafts with built-in emergency kits for navigation in flooded cities? Better and faster sea walls? Directing rising sea levels into below-sea-level basins through canals (Salton Sea beachfront property!)?