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

Bird populations declining fast across North America

emagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 322 posts

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#311

Post by throwawaylinux »

lambdadmitry wrote: post #300
throwawaylinux wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 doome…

> 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 People drove megafauna extinct before they invented the wheel. Great Britain lost most of its forest, irreversibly (for at least next few millennia), before Romans arrived. Romans, in turn, demolished half of Europe worth of fore…

> Taking that argument seriously it means that "the sustainable carrying capacity" is way below what we had in 300 BCE.

No it doesn't, because I'm not saying there's one carrying capacity that's somehow inherent to earth.

Of course it's related to technology and lifestyles and our environmental impact. What made you think I was trying to say otherwise?

Clearly if we got all our energy from burning wood and food from hunting and gathering, we couldn't even support 1% of our population without massive unsustainable habitat destruction. And yes in the past there have been many unsustainable societies that we might like to have changed but that's done now we are dealing with what's in front of us.

And with our current environmental impact, the current population is not sustainable. Maybe technology and societies will change enough in future that it could sustainably support today's levels of population, but that's irrelevant. That doesn't help the 53% of grassland birds in North America being wiped out in the past 50 years.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#312

Post by throwawaylinux »

carbonguy wrote: post #305
throwawaylinux wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is probably that, if you believe the biosphere is in crisis NOW, then waiting hundreds of years for human populations to decline is not a solution. I didn't say that waiting for western countries to decline to 5% of their populations was solution. Hope that cleared things up for you. > There's an odd disconnect in the comments you've been making where you identify this problem of overpopulation, but seem…

> I didn't say that waiting for western countries to decline to 5% of their populations was solution. I suppose not, though what you say later in this comment is remarkably close: > Most of the highest consuming countries have naturally declining populations, so one thing would be to leave those alone rather than institute growth policies. Moving on: > What's really odd is that you think an observation is verboten if…

> Given this, I very urgently desire solutions that DON'T take 500 years to work, because if those are all we can come up with, then we might as well not bother: this civilization of ours is doomed sooner rather than later.

You keep coming back to that, but it's a strawman. I did not say that is the solution. My hypothetical 5% was just to say that so many difficult problems would suddenly become easy ones.

There is no one solution, there won't be a mere handful of solutions. There will be (and are) many many efforts and they won't "solve" it, they will make some things better and make others less bad. So anything will help, anything is better than nothing. Reducing population growth from 20% to 10% by 2030 means we only have to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions by 45% per capita instead of 50% per capita to achieve the same result (to make up some numbers). That's a huge win. And not only does that benefit apply to greenhouse gas emissions, it applies to practically all environmental problems.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#313

Post by ekianjo »

Typhon wrote: post #290
ekianjo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This group will go extinct just by following their own philosophy. Brilliant.

Organizations (mostly) don't self-perpetuate through sexual reproduction. It's perfectly possible for the VHEMT to expand if they manage to convince enough people.

Still, if your philosophy already favors self-extinction, you are already fighting against the odds.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#314

Post by ekianjo »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #271
ekianjo wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not trying to promote population growth. Rather avoiding a too steep decline.

No they're trying to promote population growth.

No, they are not. Most countries would be happy to get back to population replacement. Countries like Korea, Germany or Japan CANNOT even dream of increasing their population at 1.2 fertility rate. Get your facts right.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#315

Post by ekianjo »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #270
ekianjo wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. That is catastrophism.

No, it's just what's happening. For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29546714

Please explain to me how the survival of birds is linked to the survival of human life on Earth. We are already in a civilization where we don't depend anymore on foraging stuff that grows in nature anymore.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#316

Post by ekianjo »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #269
ekianjo wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and upset at me when I suggest that the current population is not supported by the earth sustainably, because you are wrong. 100 years ago people said we would all starve when the world population reaches 1 billion people. then we not only not starved but became wealthier as well. Doom predictions are mostly damn wrong.

No it's not because I'm wrong, because you can argue with or debate with people who are wrong (or you believe are wrong) without becoming irrational and angry. And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. This might come down to semantics on what exactly you suppose sustainable to mean or whether or not it is desirable, but causing an ongoing mass extinction event does not meet my definition of sustainable.…

> And I'm not making any predictions, just observations.

Claiming we are in the middle of a mass extinction event is a prediction, not an observation. It will become an observation when you have actually seen billions of species disappear over time. You don't extrapolate an extinction based on trends over dozens of years (especially on mostly imperfect data).

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#317

Post by moosey »

AussieWog93 wrote: post #307
moosey wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "command economy", or even "China", are still abstractions. Arguably, your points further prove mine.

Really? The whole point of a command economy is to have a central planning authority that oversees production of x tons of potatoes, y tons of steel and z T-34 tanks. They explicitly ignore abstract financial metrics like GDP and stock prices. They still ruined the environment. Unless you're arguing that the mere existence of abstract concepts somehow degrades the environment, I don't see how this proves your point.

My point is, what does it serve to build tanks? If the goal is to protect "our nation", then we are serving the abstractions.

If you take a "command economy" and tell it to feed the people of the world, restore natural areas, shelter people... Then the abstractions serves real things.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#318

Post by throwawaylinux »

ekianjo wrote: post #316
throwawaylinux wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not because I'm wrong, because you can argue with or debate with people who are wrong (or you believe are wrong) without becoming irrational and angry. And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. This might come down to semantics on what exactly you suppose sustainable to mean or whether or not it is desirable, but causing an ongoing mass extinction event does not meet my definition of sustainable.…

> And I'm not making any predictions, just observations. Claiming we are in the middle of a mass extinction event is a prediction, not an observation. It will become an observation when you have actually seen billions of species disappear over time. You don't extrapolate an extinction based on trends over dozens of years (especially on mostly imperfect data).

No I'm talking about actual observations. I'm not going to nitpick about semantics with you no this. Extinction rates are 2-3 orders of magnitude higher than normal, which is not sustainable.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#319

Post by throwawaylinux »

ekianjo wrote: post #314
throwawaylinux wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're trying to promote population growth.

No, they are not. Most countries would be happy to get back to population replacement. Countries like Korea, Germany or Japan CANNOT even dream of increasing their population at 1.2 fertility rate. Get your facts right.

Yes they are.

Re: Bird populations declining fast across North America

#320

Post by throwawaylinux »

ekianjo wrote: post #315
throwawaylinux wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's just what's happening. For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29546714

Please explain to me how the survival of birds is linked to the survival of human life on Earth. We are already in a civilization where we don't depend anymore on foraging stuff that grows in nature anymore.

Strawman.
Post reply on HN