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

Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

thewalrus.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 179 posts

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#21

Post by derefr »

exitb wrote: post #9

While I support the efforts to prevent and reverse the environmental damage we're causing, personally I don't believe they'll really succeed. It seems that human society is fundamentally incapable of acting in a coordinated way against a global, long term threat. So at a certain point convincing people to take the bus instead of a car, specifically because that will save the planet, starts to seem like a lie. It's no…

Why would "convincing people to take the bus instead of a car" require coordinated action? Just stop letting them buy gas. (Where by "them" I mean individual passenger-vehicle drivers. Continue to allow commercial vehicles to buy gas, but require that they show their commercial-vehicle license at the register.)

A country could do it; or it could be done city by city with municipal bylaws to act only upon the worst polluting regions. And, since the only restriction would be on buying gasoline, people who still wanted to drive could just buy EVs.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#22

Post by version_five »

boredumb wrote: post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

A big problem is there's no vocal positive or optimistic environmental movement. What gets attention are doomsday prophesies and people using the environment to push their political beliefs. It's almost impossible to get everyone on board with negativity. You just get a base of true believers while alienating everyone else, as you say.

We need to push positive solutions (nuclear power and carbon capture) that aren't thinly veiled religion and politics.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#23

Post by boredumb »

crooked-v wrote: post #15
boredumb wrote: post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

The attempts at "real public conversation" led to passive or active mockery anyway. Consider, for example, ManBearPig.

I don't think many people were under the impression Al Gore was having a real public conversation. His books and movies fall squarely into the "alarmist" category.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#24

Post by hotpotamus »

boredumb wrote: post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

I'd have to imagine for any issue, I can nut pick someone (thanks social media for making this ever easier) and portray anyone who agrees with them as lunatics who are unwilling to have a real public conversation, but I wouldn't consider that honest.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#25

Post by CalRobert »

boredumb wrote: post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

Of course, the predicament is what to do when the end times (at least for our civilisation) is one of the plausible outcomes of our current actions.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#26

Post by pixel3234 »

defrost wrote: post #10
pixel3234 wrote: post #5

Disasters are normal! In past 10,000 years global sea level has risen by 100 meters.

Accuracy, please. During the peak of the last Ice Age (~20,000 years ago), sea level was ~120 m lower than today. As a consequence of global warming, albeit naturally, the rate of sea-level rise averaged ~1.2 cm per year for 10,000 years until it levelled off at roughly today's position ~10,000 years ago. [1] The important part being things have been stable for a very long time wrt human history . All our established…

Fair enough, I checked it was 60 meters, not 100m [1]

However I do not buy "stable for a very long time wrt human history". There was little ice age in 17th century. 11th century had very warm and fertile weather in Scandinavia, population boom and Vikings... We can go into Egyptian history and droughts that lasted centuries... Entire Sahara was garden in living memory, when pyramids were build...

> take action to mitigate

I guess I should buy Tesla then? Do you own any stock btw? Perhaps slight conflict of interest?

We will have to drastically reduce our life standards. Not to "take action" but to live within our means! For US that means no more 4000 pound cars, but small electric bikes!

[1] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth107/node/1506

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#27

Post by CalRobert »

boredumb wrote: post #23
crooked-v wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The attempts at "real public conversation" led to passive or active mockery anyway. Consider, for example, ManBearPig.

I don't think many people were under the impression Al Gore was having a real public conversation. His books and movies fall squarely into the "alarmist" category.

In what sense?

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#28

Post by woooooo »

jbu wrote: post #20
boredumb wrote: post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

News people don't like is often dismissed as 'hysterics', 'alarmism', etc, which is a well known cognitive bias. Nearly all people trying to improve the future do so sensibly, following established processes and norms and trying to be nice, but you haven't heard of these people because that's not how change is made in the face of established power that doesn't want the change. Most of that good work gets sunk. Change…

Step 1: Nobody likes hysterics or alarmism

Step 2: Hey no need to point fingers here or say "I told you so", we're all dealing with this.

Re: Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal”

#29

Post by awestroke »

boredumb wrote: post #3

I think all the alarmist language is doing a massive disservice to environmental concerns for the reason the author is portraying but also a much different reason where a lot of people tend to greet hysterics with absolute doubt and discern. When environmentalists decided instead of having a real public conversation and resorting to what a lot of people perceive as the people screaming on the corner about the end tim…

Communicating the impending doom of man-made climate change had been done in all possible shapes and forms since the 1970s. The approach does not matter, because the truth is too uncomfortable no matter how it's worded. If non-alarmist language is used, then nobody cares. If alarmist langauage is used, people like you compare scientists to flat earthers.

Don't criticise the messengers if you don't like the message.

Post reply on HN