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

Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 265 posts

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#151

Post by [deleted] »

adrianN wrote: post #147
chii wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lack of economic ability is not the same as someone forcing you not to have children. And you can still have children even when facing economic hardship - lots of people have done it (think immigrant families who start out poor). I would also claim that a lot of western nations subsidize families already, so economic factors is not considered eugenics imho.

How would you feel about a free test for $genetic_marker coupled with taxes for parents that have children with $genetic_marker ? Surely that would count as "forced"?

[deleted]

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#152

Post by ClumsyPilot »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #137
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sentence is factualy accurate. If you are not comfortable with that, it suggest you are engaging in double think. Basically doing the same thing Russia does when it calls a war 'special operation'. Basic premice is solid, after all we don't look kindly at the medieval peasants that pointlessly died of the plague because they didn't know to wash their hands. Or chopped down all forests in UK to build wooden ships…

Yeah but we don't call it the Deforestation Age or the Plague Age, and most people don't center those concerns when talking about the past. Re plague, the one thing that could be argued actually comes to mind when considering the middle ages, those waves of disease killed ~ half the population. To compete, climate change would have to kill several billion people. I think it's fair to call that alarmist.

Lets imagine your are right.

So if you go to a person on the street, and ask them: "are you happy to live through something like the black death, but slighly better"? and the responce is gonna be "yeah, that's fine. We should not take action to prevent that"

Can you imagine the devastation it left behind?

Also the problem with the comparison is that the plague is finished withing a decade once everyone has immunity or dies. On the other hand clinate change is forever.

And if it induces drounght, crop failures and famine, it could kill hundreds of millions, maybe two billion - and then it would be worse

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#153

Post by rebuilder »

psychoslave wrote: post #125
ehnto wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The choice isn't even starting from the middle of the spectrum. We already have the foot on the accelerator, and it's unlikely we'll let up with our current generation of leaders. I think we'll continue to pollute at a rate far too great for the planet to handle, and we're going to have to get very good at remediation to continue living here. It will only be once the next generation of leaders comes into power, maybe…

>I think we'll continue to pollute at a rate far too great for the planet to handle, and we're going to have to get very good at remediation to continue living here. The planet will do fine, but even stating such a thing is still commit anthropomorphism. The planet will continue to exist for a long time, no matter what the fate of mankind will be. Even life is most likely to continue prospering in a way or in an othe…

When people worry about nuclear war, do you also console them that the cockroaches will likely live on?

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#154

Post by larsnystrom »

psychoslave wrote: post #125
ehnto wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The choice isn't even starting from the middle of the spectrum. We already have the foot on the accelerator, and it's unlikely we'll let up with our current generation of leaders. I think we'll continue to pollute at a rate far too great for the planet to handle, and we're going to have to get very good at remediation to continue living here. It will only be once the next generation of leaders comes into power, maybe…

>I think we'll continue to pollute at a rate far too great for the planet to handle, and we're going to have to get very good at remediation to continue living here. The planet will do fine, but even stating such a thing is still commit anthropomorphism. The planet will continue to exist for a long time, no matter what the fate of mankind will be. Even life is most likely to continue prospering in a way or in an othe…

You're absolutely right, the planet is in no danger. It's us humans that are in danger. We are polluting at a rate far too great for us humans to handle, and if we want to survive as a species we must do something about that.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#155

Post by brutusborn »

seydor wrote: post #120

Without competition you don't have a market. You don't even have political discourse. You have centralized, planned economy and society, clearly defined 'optima', in which the academics have all the power. I think this should be added to the discussion section as there is an obvious conflict of interest here. Maybe we shoulkd have a world without power instead ...

I think this is covered in the supplement, 4. Economics, f) Free market...

I would agree that competition in some form is essential, but we must also be mindful of issues with competition such as market failures.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#156

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

adrianN wrote: post #145
franciscop wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion the issue with the balance here is that no matter where you fall on the "climate scale belief" (except probably the most extreme of deniers), people consider anyone that thinks a better future than you is coming will be labelled a denier, while anyone who thinks a worse future than you think is coming is given a soft pass as just having stronger convictions. That unfortunately leaves the vast majority o…

The problem is that _any_ action is criticized as sacrificing prosperity, even though it often just sacrifices the prosperity of a small number of people.

No post body was provided.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#157

Post by brutusborn »

mberning wrote: post #16

I got to the plan section and was mighty disappointed. This is simply a treatise on how bad humans and civilization are in the eyes of the new age Gaia religion. All problems and very few “pro human” solutions.

I interpreted the PLAN section as a call for more interdisciplinary study, and a focus on complexity rather than traditional academic reductionism. What makes you interpret it as 'how bad humans and civilization are'? It's going to be difficult to implement their PLAN without humans or civilization.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#158

Post by AlgorithmicTime »

dariosalvi78 wrote: post #117
c54 wrote: post #36

I do think some of the concerns here are right on the nose > What can be done to minimize the chances of colossal failure or sub-systemic breakdown, which in the worst case could threaten preservation of science and human knowledge? It seems like the two extremes are degrowth and malthus on the one hand, and haughty denialist expansionism on the other. One is borderline eugenicist and denies billions of people of our…

I don't see de-growth as an extreme option, in fact it is the only outcome possible in the long term, either in a planned manner, or through collapse. In terms of denialists, I am afraid that actually the majority of people are overwhelmed by the huge issues we are facing, and just think we should enjoy life and forget about any responsibility. I don't want to lose hope, but as things are now, I am afraid that we are…

No post body was provided.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#159

Post by brutusborn »

I came to the comments expecting them to be hopeful and supportive but most seem to be critical and barely engaging with the paper at all. These people are trying to produce a network to study the world in a different way to make life better through avoiding existential risks. How do people see this in a bad light? The paper uses some language that may seem pessimistic, but to me seems on the whole fairly realistic and balanced.

Re: Modernity is incompatible with planetary limits: a PLAN for the future

#160

Post by adastra22 »

ben_w wrote: post #101
adastra22 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ideal setup is probably CO2 levels quite a bit higher than today’s, but with a sunshade filtering out UV-B wavelengths. All of earth would be habitable, but without major weather swings.

Ideal for plants is bad for us.

Um.. no? I don't know what you might mean here.

Higher CO2 levels will result in vastly more arable land, mostly from the reduction of deserts and the warming of permafrost. Higher CO2 levels make agricultural crops grow faster and bigger. Higher CO2 levels (within the range I was talking about) has no effect on human respiration. Ideal for plants is good for us too.

Post reply on HN