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

Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 183 posts

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#111

Post by Amezarak »

fragmede wrote: post #108
Amezarak wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was in full agreement with your comment until... > We should not be eating nearly as much meat as people do in rich countries. My peasant ancestors were eating meat every day 500 years ago. You can find different groups of people all over the world that are documented eating absurdly meat-heavy diets historically. Yes, at least some of us believe meat is very important for human flourishing. In strictly measurable…

Sorry that saving the planet might cause minor inconvenience for you. There were far fewer factory farms and antibiotics 500 years ago, and 95% fewer people. What was sustainable then isn't sustainable now.

If the price is saving the planet is turning it into the dystopia we seem to be zooming towards full speed, I will be happy to not pay it and suffer the consequences of our civilization collapsing. I’m not changing my behavior and I will fight vigorously for it.

If you stopped all meat production today it would not save you. (Post)industrial society itself is what is unsustainable. There is no way around that. There is no technological solution - we can barely maintain the pretense of keeping up with all the problems our tech causes. You can buy time (maybe), that’s all. Technological man cannot seem to grasp humility. There is no controlling the world. This article and some other comments go into some great detail.

>might cause minor inconvenience for you.

My current great health is not a “convenience.” It is an incredible blessing and I will fight to maintain the things that seemingly contribute to it.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#112

Post by drekk »

Asooka wrote: post #79
analognoise wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than give up eating meat. The only viable method is lab grown meat that tastes exactly the same, same texture, and is cheaper. That's it. People have real stuff in their lives - they're not worried about planetary survival in 100 years, they're worried about next months rent, etc.

I definitely would not eat lab grown meat. My own meat consumption is less than 200g per day. I eat one hamburger a month at most, as a treat. I want it to be the best hamburger from the happiest free range cow ever. I'm not going to eat some synthetic imitation, I'll just have bean stew with the occasional piece of chicken. The way the vegan movement has weaseled its way into the discussion on climate change has bee…

Who is people? I've been a vegetarian for half a decade now on account of a family history of cardiovascular disease. People lack discipline and imagination, but it's not exactly rocket science to have a plant based diet. The largest obstacle is the large swathes of food deserts and the subsidizing of junk food.

If people had to pay the real price of meat with environmental externalities factored in most people would consume at a level you've described or even less. My issue with that is it doesn't address how most lifestyle emissions are attributable to the wealthiest economic class. It's still a better alternative to the system we have now, which is clearly unsustainable.

A 1/3rd pound burger takes 660 gallons of water to produce, or about 2500 liters. That's not even getting into any of the typical inputs like antibiotics which have their own collection of problems. Say what you will about vegans, it's impossible to talk about the environment without bringing up the impacts of industrial agribusiness and factory farming.

While we're talking about efficiency, you gain an order of magnitude improvement by farming crops for humans to eat rather than farming crops for animals to eat for humans to eat. Only about 55% of the crops we go are directly consumed by humans, the rest is used for feed and biofuels. It would take a tenth of the land area to feed the same amount of people plant-based vs an omnivorous diet. We should absolutely be pushing for less centralized food production, and chickens are a useful part of that. They turn food waste into new food and deal with several pests. That's very different from slaughtering them wholesale for cheap dinosaur nuggets.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#113

Post by labster »

myshpa wrote: post #66
analognoise wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than give up eating meat. The only viable method is lab grown meat that tastes exactly the same, same texture, and is cheaper. That's it. People have real stuff in their lives - they're not worried about planetary survival in 100 years, they're worried about next months rent, etc.

> Humanity would rather go to war to thin our numbers than give up eating meat We're using up resources at a pace that outstrips Earth's ability to replenish them. For instance, we're already consuming 1.7 times the Earth's available resources. https://www.overshootday.org/ If everyone were to adopt a diet similar to the American diet, we would require more than five Earths to sustain it. https://css.umich.edu/public…

I don’t think our grandchildren are going to care what we say. They’ll be too busy scavenging the scorched ruins of our cities for the last cans of refrigerant so they can survive another month on our doomed planet.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#114

Post by swader999 »

Eduard wrote: post #57
swader999 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years is misleading. This is weather and engineering failures. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5

> No kidding, but to say that climate change did this when hurricanes have been on the decline the last thirty years is misleading. This is weather and engineering failures. > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5 This HN user categorically and obsessively has their own opinion on climate change, and how it is influenced by humans. Their "evidence research" is taking the first Google search result that t…

Well forget studies then, look at the data: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&...

Use the drop down and look at accumulated cyclone energy. There's no trend in 42 years and last year was the third lowest total tropical cyclone energy for earth in the last 42 years. This year seems on track to be very low for cyclone energy too.

Costs in terms of percent of GDP are falling: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17477891.2018.15...

And most importantly, death rates for weather are drastically reduced over the last hundred years: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-nat...

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#115

Post by labster »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #100
ifdefdebug wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let them age out Doesn't work. A long time ago I thought when all the old farts are gone, everything is going to be better. Had to have faith in my own generation right? You know what happened... Humanity just grew a new set of old farts.

This, and so much this. "The hope of the world is in our generation". No, it really isn't. Any given generation is, statistically, a lot like every other generation (certainly over spans of 4-6 generations).

So basically we have no hope then?

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#116

Post by labster »

jacquesm wrote: post #47
IKantRead wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give it some time. Good news is that "faster than expected" seems to be a very common saying among people studying these areas, so you might not have to wait as long as the geological time might suggest! Honestly, as someone who has been very concerned about climate for a while now, I'm surprised how much visible disruption of the climate system we've directly been able to observe. Earlier in my life I thought that,…

You have a funny definition of 'good news'.

Good news often comes in suppository form these days.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#117

Post by lucidguppy »

We are done falling off the cliff and are toes are starting to impact the ground.

The best case scenario is for the powers that be to understand that there isn't enough private island to stop what's coming. They're in the same boat with us no matter what. Nature always has the last say.

We need to stop draw down of fossil resources, reduce our impact on the land, and seek the best possible outcome of a really bad situation.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#118

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

labster wrote: post #115
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, and so much this. "The hope of the world is in our generation". No, it really isn't. Any given generation is, statistically, a lot like every other generation (certainly over spans of 4-6 generations).

So basically we have no hope then?

Hope is fine. Hope based on "the kids today will do right by the world", not so much.

Re: Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries

#119

Post by Tanoc »

ribosometronome wrote: post #84
apsec112 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions isn't military, it's for ordinary consumer uses like heating, cooling, driving, and farming meat. No matter what the form of government, lots of people will object very strongly if the solution to climate change is not having central heating, cars, hot water, or beef for dinner.

Does renewable power and hydrogen/electric vehicles not solve essentially all of what you listed, save beef?

Nope. The way we build things from the ground up has to change. Literally build things. Flat topped buildings made out of steel and concrete surrounded by pavement generate tons of heat that doesn't get dissipated, which cascades into creating high pressure air bubbles around towns and cities that prevent rain from approaching. That cascades even further into affecting weather and creating droughts, because all the pavement prevents water from being absorbed by the ground and entering the water table. That water creates flash floods since the ground underneath the pavement is too dry to absorb it, creating a vicious cycle where the water table drops even further and the soil compacts and becomes even more hydrophobic.

We have to stop building parking lots everywhere, stop building flat top highrises, stop using concrete and steel, build everything with roofs designed to absorb heat and transfer it into the ground instead of radiate it, tear up a good chunk of the highways, parking lots, and surface streets, plant tons of trees and broad leaf greenery to shield from heat with shade and absorb it, and refill the water tables by pumping water back into the ground. All of which costs a ton of money. And what we should do, damn the financial cost and those who decry it.

Slapping a Mickey Mouse Band-Aid onto a gaping wound that needs seventy two stitches is the equivalent of what people suggest when they say "Well I'll just use renewable energy."

Post reply on HN