Stop Calling Each New Disaster “The New Normal” • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by _ea1k » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:01 PM UTC

exitb wrote: post #19

swader999 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We dealt with the ozone hole fairly well. There hasn't been total nuclear war. The Netherlands is ten feet under sea level and does fine. Polar bears and all other bears are absolutely thriving.

Neither of these things required any change from regular people. In fact, today many people say that ozone hole just disappeared, because the changes needed were so transparent, no one even noticed. Is there a way people can continue their normal lives, but still eliminate the green house gasses emissions?

When they were happening, everyone noticed the changes regarding the ozone hole. Whether they believe those changes were impactful is a different matter.

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

#112

Post by btbuildem » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #94

perfunctory wrote: post #16

Too bad the author is not offering any alternative. It's not good enough to just say "stop doing X". It would be nice if it's followed by "Do Y instead". Maybe I missed it, but the only thing I found in the whole article that resembles a counterproposal is a single sentence in the end - "... policy flows from conversation and debate instead of force." So we are supposed to have more conversation and debate? Sounds li…

Why must there be an alternative? There's no utility in communicating "this is the new normal" other than to persuade others in a prescriptive manner. It's completely unnecessary unless one has some ulterior motive. It's the new normal, bro. Get with it. What are you, stuck in the past? /s

When you're criticizing something, you must present an alternative for your criticisms to hold any weight. If you're unable to say "let's build that" after shouting "let's tear this down" it tells me you don't understand the situation well enough to speak about it to others.

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

#113

Post by swader999 » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:05 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #98

swader999 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it hasn't. Sea level rise and extreme weather events are not on an accelerating trend. Hurricanes for example. Fires in the twenties and forties were much worse. North America is greener now more than ever in the last two hundred years.

"Between 1901 and 2018, the average global sea level rose by 15–25 cm (6–10 in), or 1–2 mm per year.[1] This rate is increasing; sea levels are now rising at a rate of 3.7 mm (0.146 inches) per year.[2] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise sources are 1: IPCC, 2019: Summary for Policymakers 2: IPCC, 2021: Summary for Policymakers seems credible?

That 3.7mm per year is dubious. But, yeah sure I'll even give you that, and it's easily manageable over that time frame. More from your source: "" If global warming is limited to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F), then sea level rise does not accelerate, but it would still amount to 2–3 m (7–10 ft) over the next 2000 years, while 19–22 metres (62–72 ft) would occur if the warming peaks at 5 °C (9.0 °F)

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

#114

Post by paganel » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:06 PM UTC

“Stop being a doomer!” sounds even better, especially after two years of Covid-related doomer mandates that have brought us (and especially our kids) more harm than good.

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

#115

Post by letsawaytoday » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:07 PM UTC

awestroke wrote: post #29

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.

You're whitewashing the past eco movements. They've been alarmist since the beginning with claims that everyone would be starving by the late 70s or that the air would be unbreathable due to smog or that the global temperature would drop drastically and on and on. It was the same alarmist bullshit that got us into this mess by advocating against nuclear power.

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

#116

Post by SoftTalker » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:10 PM UTC

Phrases like "the new normal" are clues that what you are reading is propaganda. The author has an agenda, and is not just relaying information.

If you find yourself using such phrases, stop. It's cliche, and weakens the message. Stick to facts, or if you are writing persuasively, make a proper argument instead of falling back on stock phrases.

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

#117

Post by version_five » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:14 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #101

ianai wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s stuff people can do. Eat less/no meat. Buy an EV. Etc. But then commentators will refute that with all sorts of stuff “one person can’t make any sizable impact,” “EVs are powered from the grid which isn’t carbon neutral”, “EV tires spread particulate emissions.” Etc. Thing is, denialism and stopping progress makes people looking for solutions also more extreme. So who knows. Maybe part of the answer is partia…

EV's are a half-assed patch and meant to be a drop-in replacement for ICE's until we can do something better, but sadly they've mostly been an excuse for even bigger, faster, heavier, more dangerous vehicles. I just want to ride my bike and take the train for most of my daily needs, maybe using an hourly car hire for the other trips.

> I just want to ride my bike and take the train for most of my daily needs, maybe using an hourly car hire for the other trips.

If that's what you want, cool, you almost certainly can find a life situation where it's possible. It's people who want to forcibly make everyone live that way that are the problem.

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

#118

Post by runarberg » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:17 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #116

Phrases like "the new normal" are clues that what you are reading is propaganda. The author has an agenda, and is not just relaying information. If you find yourself using such phrases, stop. It's cliche, and weakens the message. Stick to facts, or if you are writing persuasively, make a proper argument instead of falling back on stock phrases.

What do you suggest instead? My favorite phrase that I think captures the urgency and the desperate nature of the situation is “This is only gonna get worse, and we are all going to die”.

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

#119

Post by Ichthypresbyter » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:22 PM UTC

Izkata wrote: post #100

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stop letting them buy gas? That would take either: - That companies (plural) stop selling gas. That's coordinated action, because you need all the oil companies (or all the gas stations) to agree. - That the government decides it. But in a democracy, that takes coordinated action too. The president does not have the constitutional authority to decree "no more sales of gasoline for passenger vehicles".

> That the government decides it. But in a democracy, that takes coordinated action too. The president does not have the constitutional authority to decree "no more sales of gasoline for passenger vehicles". California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington are going for it: https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/states-banning-new-gas-po...

No they aren't (or at least that's not what your link says). They are banning sales of new gas-powered passenger vehicles but for the foreseeable future you will still be able to buy gas for your old beater, '67 Mustang, or red Barchetta.

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

#120

Post by pixl97 » Fri, Jun 16, 2023, 2:23 PM UTC

hermannj314 wrote: post #61

pixl97 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem comes to 'return to. Your method sounds rather violent.

We can do it gradually or nature will do it violently. Every species needs population control. If we want air conditioning, commercial jets, and bottled water, then we need to get global population under a billion people.

>We can do it gradually

Good news, we already are. Most countries now are below population replacement level. Many countries like Japan are near panic because the population is going to drop very quickly in the next 20 to 40 years.