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

David Attenborough at 99: 'I will not see how the story ends'

thetimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 187 posts

Re: David Attenborough at 99: 'I will not see how the story ends'

#51

Post by slaw »

cryptonector wrote: post #50
bayarearefugee wrote: post #2

I think that not seeing how the story ends will be a blessing in disguise. (I do not share his optimism that we fix this, the forces of Line Must Go Up are going to win... at least until we all rapidly lose)

The human population is set to crash quite hard in the next 100 years. It's backed into the cake.

Not all human population is going to crash. Africa population in 1950 was 228.7 million, in 2025 is 1549 million. Fertility rate in 2025 is 4.05.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/afr/afr...

Re: David Attenborough at 99: 'I will not see how the story ends'

#52

Post by netsharc »

GoatInGrey wrote: post #43
ropable wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relying on market forces to mitigate/address the impact of climate change will require us to collectively impose actual market pressure (i.e. regulation, constraints) to do so. Not seeing much sign of that among the major contributors of emissions right at the moment.

That's because very few people are being meaningfully affected right now. For most, climate change exists as an abstract idea and not an immediate, physical problem. It doesn't help that claims like those made by Al Gore about the polar ice caps being gone by 2016 turned out to be untrue. I wouldn't expect society to transform itself if told that an asteroid may impact Earth in eighty years, for similar reasons.

Heck, faced with a rapidly spreading virus that can kill in 2 weeks (for the general public at a very low percentage, for our elderly neighbors a lot higher), a large majority of humans turned to angry denials and conspiracy theories to justify to themselves that "it's not that dangerous!".

We are so fucking dead.

Re: David Attenborough at 99: 'I will not see how the story ends'

#55

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

ropable wrote: post #34
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory: The forces of Line Must Go Up are going to keep winning. Mitigating the impact of climate change will be part of Line Goes Up. Whether it will be cheaper or more expensive than avoiding it in the first place will remain to be seen (but won't really matter in the end), but we will be facing whatever impacts we will be facing, and we will face them, and we will deal with them. If you have any doubt, look at…

Relying on market forces to mitigate/address the impact of climate change will require us to collectively impose actual market pressure (i.e. regulation, constraints) to do so. Not seeing much sign of that among the major contributors of emissions right at the moment.

Market pressure is required to avoid climate change by keeping companies from externalizing climate impacts.

Market pressure is not required for a city to decide that having the city flooded is bad, and start a tender for building a sea wall. This makes the line go up for the sea wall companies.

Re: David Attenborough at 99: 'I will not see how the story ends'

#56

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

recursivecaveat wrote: post #35
tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My theory: The forces of Line Must Go Up are going to keep winning. Mitigating the impact of climate change will be part of Line Goes Up. Whether it will be cheaper or more expensive than avoiding it in the first place will remain to be seen (but won't really matter in the end), but we will be facing whatever impacts we will be facing, and we will face them, and we will deal with them. If you have any doubt, look at…

For the Netherlands, the entity that pays the cost is the same that benefits from preparedness. For climate change, the plastic doohickey plant in misc country who would have to pay the cost of losing their asset, is entirely divorced from the entities who will benefit from CO2 reduction: everyone in the world. It's a prisoner's dilemma played at every level from the individual to the corporation to the region, and c…

I'm not talking about CO2 reduction, I'm talking about living with the result that the emissions have caused. And for that, the entity that pays the cost and benefits will again be the same.

Re: David Attenborough at 99: 'I will not see how the story ends'

#57

Post by ethersteeds »

bayarearefugee wrote: post #2

I think that not seeing how the story ends will be a blessing in disguise. (I do not share his optimism that we fix this, the forces of Line Must Go Up are going to win... at least until we all rapidly lose)

I interpreted his "optimism that we will fix this" as the continuation of his lifelong practice of science communication in service of ecosystem preservation. I believe he grasps that people are far more motivated by having a positive vision to run towards than by a negative one to flee.

In that, I think he's being incredibly strategic with his voice in what he knows are his final years. He could leave us saying "everything is fucked, you absolute idiots", but what is there for us to do then besides lie down in the mud?

Instead he's signing off with "We have come so far, I wish I could witness the spectacular recovery you're all about to usher into being!"

Gentle parenting the apocalypse. What a legend.

Re: David Attenborough at 99: 'I will not see how the story ends'

#59

Post by noisy_boy »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #49
hermitcrab wrote: post #20

I watched David Attenborough's recent film 'Ocean' on a big screen. The footage of bottom trawling was really shocking. I don't understand how that has been allowed to continue in UK coastal waters, let alone to be subsidised in marine protected areas. Madness. It's like napalming a forest to get a few deer. Thankfully things may be changing: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-proposes-to-ex... Don't know…

Greenpeace used to drop boulders into the ocean to prevent bottom trawling circa 2021-2022. Unsure if they still do. Fairly straightforward to solve for if you’re willing to drop chunks of rock (granite, non reactive) or concrete in the ocean at the right spots. Bans are nice, destructive force against adversaries works better though. Hard to take the selfish out of the human, so you have to engineer systems accordin…

I think it would be a great PR idea for a billionaire to buy a few old ships and use them to drop rocks over the most popular/vulnerable fishing grounds. What happened to rich people who were all not evil?

Re: David Attenborough at 99: 'I will not see how the story ends'

#60

Post by xingped »

noisy_boy wrote: post #59
toomuchtodo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greenpeace used to drop boulders into the ocean to prevent bottom trawling circa 2021-2022. Unsure if they still do. Fairly straightforward to solve for if you’re willing to drop chunks of rock (granite, non reactive) or concrete in the ocean at the right spots. Bans are nice, destructive force against adversaries works better though. Hard to take the selfish out of the human, so you have to engineer systems accordin…

I think it would be a great PR idea for a billionaire to buy a few old ships and use them to drop rocks over the most popular/vulnerable fishing grounds. What happened to rich people who were all not evil?

New money outcompeted old money in the economic ecosystem and new money doesn't have the same historical fear of the proletarian guillotine.
Post reply on HN