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

171–180 of 187 posts

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

#171

Post by ChocolateGod »

jfengel wrote: post #39
Silhouette wrote: post #16

None of us see the end of the story but I do fear that the story could change when we inevitably lose a passionate advocate in Sir David whose credibility on this issue has been unchallengeable. I take some comfort from the younger generations who are now growing up with a much greater awareness of the natural environment and the damage we humans can do to it and a much lower tolerance for political sophistry and cap…

Here's the good news: we've done basically nothing about climate change even with him, so losing such an esteemed spokesman won't actually make it worse. Admittedly that's only "good" in the sense that things are maximally bad and cannot get worse. But we might as well fake a smile because that's all we're going to get. I'd say we won't act until it's too late, but it is already too late.

> we've done basically nothing about climate change even with him

The UK is one of the biggest (relative to its size) pushers of wind energy, even when a conservative government was in power.

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

#172

Post by technocratius »

verisimi wrote: post #74
vivzkestrel wrote: post #69

The sad part of our human existence is that none of us ever live to see how our story ends. We "spawn" at a random point in time and "vanish" at another. Ageing is being worked on vigorously and while we did change our lifespan from 40 years to 80 years of existence thanks to modern science, in order for us to truly comprehend changes on a universal scale, average human lifespan would need to be 50000 years long. Tha…

Yes we die, the body goes. But if there is a further element to the experience - and near death experiences, out of body experience suggest there is - we perhaps do see how the story ends. In fact, this experience might not be the real 'story', just an opportunity of some sort to learn, grow. The point is that although many assume material reality to be all there is, it might not actually be the case.

Yeah like that time before your were born, remember?

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

#173

Post by sillyfluke »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #170
Silhouette wrote: post #16

None of us see the end of the story but I do fear that the story could change when we inevitably lose a passionate advocate in Sir David whose credibility on this issue has been unchallengeable. I take some comfort from the younger generations who are now growing up with a much greater awareness of the natural environment and the damage we humans can do to it and a much lower tolerance for political sophistry and cap…

> I don't know who the next David Attenborough could be My moneys on Danny Dyer. But in all seriousness, I can't think of a single person who's voice is as recognisable and fitting as Sir Davids, will be the end of an era for sure.

Stephen Fry, if he wants it.

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

#174

Post by abrookewood »

closewith wrote: post #118
abrookewood wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That part of the film is horrifying. Like genuinely, sick-to-the-stomach horrifying. I can't believe that anyone would willingly cause that much destruction.

> I can't believe that anyone would willingly cause that much destruction. I interact with fishermen as part of a marine SAR role and there's a significant subset who treat the sea with contempt. Not usual to see them dump rubbish overboard in littoral areas, flicking cigarettes butts into the sea, etc.

Such weird behaviour considering it is the source of their livelihood.

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

#175

Post by sokoloff »

noirscape wrote: post #129
somenameforme wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When somebody says something isn't that dangerous it always comes with an unstated post-text of 'for an average person of average health.' Each year the flu kills hundreds of thousands of people. As the population ages, and thus has more individuals in senescence where your body is basically just breaking down, that will increase into the millions. But yet it's still not unreasonable to say that the flu isn't that da…

The reality is that COVID caused lockdowns never had anything to do with the lethality rate. It had everything to do with hospital pressure - there's a limited number of ICU beds and COVID was the annoying combination of spreading easiliy and if it went bad, you'd occupy a bed in the ICU since you needed very active monitoring. If ICU capacity is exceeded, you get into the really ugly business of having to triage who…

ICU and first aid are on opposite ends of the spectrum of care. ICU saturation would not prevent the administration of first aid.

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

#176

Post by newAccount2025 »

xenadu02 wrote: post #168
marssaxman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I find hope: ten million years from now we'll all be gone, and the earth will be a beautiful, thriving place once again. The short term doesn't look so good, but at least I will only have to watch a few more decades of it.

Was it part of beautiful nature when an asteroid strike killed most life on earth? What does it matter if a bunch of non-sentient animals keep on trucking here on earth? Some disaster will eventually kill most of them just like it has repeatedly over the eons. Then the sun will die and all life on earth with it permanently. In fact the sun's red giant phase will erase even the traces that life ever existed here. Is t…

At least the asteroid didn’t know better and wreck it anyway?

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

#177

Post by marcus_holmes »

t0bia_s wrote: post #119
marcus_holmes wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop eating fish. The fishing industry is destroying the oceans.

I like fishes. Fishes are healthy and main source of Omega-3 fatty acid for many. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid Be aware of pharma propaganda that for sure support any narrations that would make benefit for them, like making any kind of natural sources good for humans as threat, like sunshine or.. Fishes?

Catching your own fish, and eating that, is fine. Even if everyone who could do that, caught the fish they intended to eat, the oceans would be fine.

It's the massive industrial trawlers that scoop up entire ecosystems that we need to stop.

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

#178

Post by seba_dos1 »

xenadu02 wrote: post #168
marssaxman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I find hope: ten million years from now we'll all be gone, and the earth will be a beautiful, thriving place once again. The short term doesn't look so good, but at least I will only have to watch a few more decades of it.

Was it part of beautiful nature when an asteroid strike killed most life on earth? What does it matter if a bunch of non-sentient animals keep on trucking here on earth? Some disaster will eventually kill most of them just like it has repeatedly over the eons. Then the sun will die and all life on earth with it permanently. In fact the sun's red giant phase will erase even the traces that life ever existed here. Is t…

There's a lot of sentient life on Earth besides humans.

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

#179

Post by marssaxman »

xenadu02 wrote: post #168
marssaxman wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I find hope: ten million years from now we'll all be gone, and the earth will be a beautiful, thriving place once again. The short term doesn't look so good, but at least I will only have to watch a few more decades of it.

Was it part of beautiful nature when an asteroid strike killed most life on earth? What does it matter if a bunch of non-sentient animals keep on trucking here on earth? Some disaster will eventually kill most of them just like it has repeatedly over the eons. Then the sun will die and all life on earth with it permanently. In fact the sun's red giant phase will erase even the traces that life ever existed here. Is t…

If I had been around at the time of the Chicxulub meteor strike, I don't suppose I would have been any happier about its after-effects than I am about the similarly devastating impact humanity has had - and continues having, knowingly, intentionally - on a world that was once beautiful.

I do not care whether humans become inter-planetary. We certainly will not survive in the long term, and that's okay.

> A bunch of biological machines fussing around accomplishing nothing and having no purpose.

We are no exception. Meaning is a fantasy we create for ourselves - or don't! - as it suits us.

> The concept of beauty only exists while there is an intelligence around to enjoy or contemplate it.

I think you under-estimate the intelligence of non-human life, and likely over-estimate our own.

In any case, there is no joy in the wanton destruction of beautiful things.

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

#180

Post by nagaiaida »

borski wrote: post #167
McDyver wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. They didn't get rich by creating value. They might have created value, but they got rich by keeping that value to themselves. I would also argue that they don't create the value themselves, but their workers do. Just like that joke: a worker is admiring the boss's Ferrari, and the boss tells him "if you continue working hard, next year I'll have 2"

> They didn't get rich by creating value. They might have created value… Odd to contradict yourself with only a period separating the contradictory statements. > I would also argue that they don't create the value themselves, but their workers do. Sure, that’s fair - but those workers also have jobs and salaries because of risk the founders took to de-risk the company before the employees joined. The level of risk re…

why pretend to have found a contradiction when a stronger reading of the comment is clearly that it meant to highlight the distinction between the creation of that value and its consolidation primarily into an individual's personal wealth?
Post reply on HN