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

Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 295 posts

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#231

Post by nunobrito »

importantbrian wrote: post #79
nunobrito wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's bizarre to me that climate skeptics think the ozone issue is a point in their favor. Ozone depletion was a real issue, but the international community came together and banned the use of CFCs. Since then ozone levels stabilized and then started to recover. They should reach pre-1980s levels this century based on current trends. It is a clear example of collective action successfully addressing a climate problem.

It was as much of a real issue as corona recently.

Both got solved with the same approach. If you went ahead getting untested vaccines into your body then for sure you also tolerate more taxes in name of "climate change".

Albeit we live on the same planet it does seem we live in two different worlds and look at the same things in opposite manner. I don't care what "science" has to say or whatever happy reality you live where "collective action" happens.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#232

Post by bheadmaster »

daveslash wrote: post #229
bheadmaster wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of the best rational arguments of environmentalism that I've heard. I wish more environmentalists used this kind of rigor in their arguments, instead of relying on emotional talk and guilt tripping. The very reason we care about the ecosystem in the first place is because we depend on it. That's the most important point - environmentalism is first and foremost about our own survival . Nobody gives a shit…

Some people do, but I definitely see your point.

Yeah... I guess they do. I could've done without the last sentence.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#233

Post by Loughla »

psychphysic wrote: post #190
Loughla wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find fascinating about the current debates about cancel culture is that it ignores, on both sides, the fact that it isn't new. The only thing that has changed is the balance of power. From a US perspective - In the past, social shunning and ostracizing was used as a way to norm the culture for the predominately white, christian culture. Cancel culture was literally being run out of your town, and/or excluded f…

What on earth are you talking about. 7 years ago a woman made a joke before she jumped on a flight and landed to see it make the world news. Are you seriously suggesting that could happen before social media? Perhaps you're quite young and don't realise quite how different the world has become over the past 10 years.

I'm not quite young, and I do understand that the world is different. I have lived most of these changes as an adult, and believe that the world is worse today than it has been, if for no other reason than a complete inability to escape connection to society for any reason thanks to technology.

But.

Yes, these things could happen before social media. Like most things, social media has absolutely amped up the effects, but this existed before.

Hell, go all the way back to the Red Scare and the various black books that existed in the, what 1940's and 1950's? Say the wrong thing in the wrong place and you were immediately labeled a commie and shunned.

That's what I'm saying. It has always existed. I just think it's a "bigger problem" for people now and there is more push back on cancel culture today than in the past because it's the previous mainstream that is being cancelled instead of an already at-risk community.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#234

Post by carapace »

bheadmaster wrote: post #220
carapace wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest answer (and thanks for asking): First, I want to make it clear that I don't think of "climate deniers" as a group per se like a race, creed, or nation. There's a lot of detail and nuance in the world and I want to explore that, not abrogate it. I just want to elucidate on that a little before I get to answering your question. You have folks like the people in the oil companies who knew about the science of the…

Thank you for the honest response. It reflects your perspective in a vivid and relatable way. I understand you in some manner - I grew up watching Captain Planet and similar eco-oriented shows that have instilled in me some feeling of "importance" of the whole subject. And seeing other people trample upon what are some of our most sacret beliefs, developed for decades, can make us sick of them. The only criticism of…

> The only criticism of those beliefs I would have is that they come from sentiment, not (only) reason - so, in theory, if instead of eco-literature, you read, say, the Bible, you would most likely have equally strong beliefs towards Christianity, and they would be supported by more-or-less same number of arguments derived from years of studying.

I like to point out (usually in a different context) that ecology is a science, and it's applications are technology.

I wrote a comment a few months ago about my beliefs and "the similarities and differences to religious apocalyptics as I see them" that you might find interesting? In sum (if I may be so gauche as to quote myself) "Ideally environmental apocalypticism is self-extinguishing." That's the primary (psychological) diiference (IMO) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32065654

> I guess that the world is doomed to stay a divisive place, because humans are, in their essence, emotional creatures with reason added.

I dunno. The most powerful emotion is love, eh? And I think the newfangled talking computers will make really good cheap therapists.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#235

Post by freilanzer »

xenadu02 wrote: post #215
m4jor wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pano-one-worlds-la... >Weighing 13 million pounds, Pando is the world’s largest organism by mass (Oregon’s “humungous fungus” spans a greater distance). Quaking aspens can reproduce by disseminating seeds, but more frequently, they send up sprouts from their roots and form a mass of trees aptly known as a “clone.” and I was able to find https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti…

IMHO that stretches the definition a bit. They're clones that happen to have an interconnected root system. Does that really make them the "same" organism? Not in any useful sense of "same".

Clones sharing a root system definitely sounds like being the same organism, if you ask me.

Re: Long before trees overtook the land, Earth was covered by prototaxites (2013)

#236

Post by comboy »

astrange wrote: post #203
comboy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> unrotted dead plants That happened with trees because cellulose was new, but I don't think there would be an issue with plants which cells have been around for a long time. But maybe I'm missing something in which case I'm happy to learn.

I was looking this up yesterday and apparently there's evidence against it. https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/lack-fungi-did-not-lea...

Oh, thank you. Now I'm confused to be honest, I've encountered lignin theory stated as a fact in a few books and I have no basis to tell who's right.

Why does it always have to be "it's complicated".

Post reply on HN