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

David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 172 posts

Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

#21

Post by _doctor_love »

welferkj wrote: post #18
_doctor_love wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly I don't think the outlook is very positive on that. I saw an article from McKinsey about the Himalayan country of Bhutan which has famously put restrictions in place to keep the country heavily forested. Good for nature, good for preserving culture, not so great for capitalism. The article I saw basically outlined in more detail what I said above and then followed it with: "....but what if that forest could be…

The "cult of line go up" is why we aren't living in caves and eating each other. Come on, we can criticize the deleterious aspects of modern society without disparaging the idea of growth itself.

LOL

Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

#22

Post by Silamoth »

welferkj wrote: post #18
_doctor_love wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly I don't think the outlook is very positive on that. I saw an article from McKinsey about the Himalayan country of Bhutan which has famously put restrictions in place to keep the country heavily forested. Good for nature, good for preserving culture, not so great for capitalism. The article I saw basically outlined in more detail what I said above and then followed it with: "....but what if that forest could be…

The "cult of line go up" is why we aren't living in caves and eating each other. Come on, we can criticize the deleterious aspects of modern society without disparaging the idea of growth itself.

1. At a certain point, the idea of growth must be criticized. Unless, of course, you think infinite growth is possible.

2. Claiming the modern capitalism’s “cult of line go up” has anything to do with humans leaving caves is a stretch at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Humans left caves out of a desire to create better lives. Stable shelter, better quality and variety food, tools to make life easier, clothing to protect us, etc. Plus probably some human desire for exploration. None of that is driving capitalists who insist “line must go up”.

We have more than enough to go around. We cannot grow infinitely. Greed is holding us back from caring for our entire human population.

Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

#23

Post by belorn »

vjerancrnjak wrote: post #16
snorremd wrote: post #5

The sad thing is Attenborough has lived to see the destruction of nature he loved so much. His constant warnings have gone mostly unheard. In some ways I think excellent nature programming like his own Nature is doing a disservice by making it seem like there's lots of wild nature left. I wish humans would come together to re-wild more of the earth. Restoring wild nature and cutting emissions is the only way to reall…

David Attenborough saw more clearly than most what was being lost. But even he stopped short of fully applying that logic to animals themselves. Rewilding at scale, deep emissions cuts, and a serious move away from animal agriculture are the same project.

Modern agriculture, both animal and non-animal versions, are bad for the environment. Artificial fertilizers, replacing forests with farm land, and drainage of wet lands are all heavily contributing to emissions and water pollution, destroying local ecosystems as well as warming the planet. Artificial fertilizers is particular bad since its production uses fossil fuels, has large amount of accidental green house emissions, and causes eutrofiering to the point of areas like the baltic sea becoming basically dead from loss of oxygen. Runoff from farms are also now the primary cause of ecosystem collapse in fresh water lakes.

Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

#25

Post by g9yuayon »

cm2012 wrote: post #20
snorremd wrote: post #5

The sad thing is Attenborough has lived to see the destruction of nature he loved so much. His constant warnings have gone mostly unheard. In some ways I think excellent nature programming like his own Nature is doing a disservice by making it seem like there's lots of wild nature left. I wish humans would come together to re-wild more of the earth. Restoring wild nature and cutting emissions is the only way to reall…

I would strongly push back on that. In most developed countries, natural wilderness is at its highest rate in hundreds of years. China's turning around the world with solar panels, all that. I wouldn't call the current state of things backsliding at all.

And in developing countries too. People may not realize that when there's no industrialization, people still need fuel. So they cut down tree that they could walk to. Just look at the pictures missionaries and travelers took in China a hundred years ago. Wherever there were people, there were only barren land. Heck, it was like that even in the early 80s in some places.

Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

#26

Post by gonzalohm »

cm2012 wrote: post #20
snorremd wrote: post #5

The sad thing is Attenborough has lived to see the destruction of nature he loved so much. His constant warnings have gone mostly unheard. In some ways I think excellent nature programming like his own Nature is doing a disservice by making it seem like there's lots of wild nature left. I wish humans would come together to re-wild more of the earth. Restoring wild nature and cutting emissions is the only way to reall…

I would strongly push back on that. In most developed countries, natural wilderness is at its highest rate in hundreds of years. China's turning around the world with solar panels, all that. I wouldn't call the current state of things backsliding at all.

Too little too late. China's coal emissions declined last year by a whooping 0.3%... after decades of increasing. We should be already reducing emissions, not flattening the curve

Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

#27

Post by tbrockman »

cm2012 wrote: post #20
snorremd wrote: post #5

The sad thing is Attenborough has lived to see the destruction of nature he loved so much. His constant warnings have gone mostly unheard. In some ways I think excellent nature programming like his own Nature is doing a disservice by making it seem like there's lots of wild nature left. I wish humans would come together to re-wild more of the earth. Restoring wild nature and cutting emissions is the only way to reall…

I would strongly push back on that. In most developed countries, natural wilderness is at its highest rate in hundreds of years. China's turning around the world with solar panels, all that. I wouldn't call the current state of things backsliding at all.

Even granting your numbers, you're measuring the wrong thing. Wilderness acreage and emissions trends are not ecosystem health.

Citing a wilderness figure for developed countries is misleading. Most of it is ecologically vacant--second-growth and tree plantations sans apex predators, large herbivores, intact soil biota, etc. Tree cover is not a functioning ecosystem. Developed countries have exported their ecological destruction: the beef, soy, palm oil, and minerals driving habitat loss in the tropics get consumed in the same places where the domestic "wilderness" figures look great.

The Living Planet Index (actual wild vertebrate populations) is down 73% on average since 1970. North American bird populations are down ~3 billion over the same period. Terrestrial insect biomass shows steep decline in studied regions. None of that shows up in "how much undeveloped land exists" or "how many solar panels got installed."

China's solar buildout is great news for climate, but climate is one driver among several. Habitat fragmentation, pollution, and overfishing don't get solved by the energy transition. You can decarbonize the entire grid and still preside over a mass extinction.

Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

#28

Post by belorn »

snorremd wrote: post #5

The sad thing is Attenborough has lived to see the destruction of nature he loved so much. His constant warnings have gone mostly unheard. In some ways I think excellent nature programming like his own Nature is doing a disservice by making it seem like there's lots of wild nature left. I wish humans would come together to re-wild more of the earth. Restoring wild nature and cutting emissions is the only way to reall…

Looking at EU, the problem do not seem that his warning has not been heard. People see how thing has gotten worse and have heard the warning. The problem is that people can't agree on what to do next. Just looking at the energy discussion in EU, half of those want to use natural gas in Peaker Plants, and the other want to use nuclear, and the result was that both strategy got the EU stamp of green with neither side agreeing with each other. By both sides opposing each other strategy, the result is that very little change happen at all.

A similar situation exist with hydro power. We know that it is causing major extinction of species that depend on migration, with major harm to the ecosystem, and yet no one want to give it up despite being fully aware of the harm. Removing hydro do not fit any of existing strategies and so the current situation, as unreasonable it is, continues unchanged.

I have also seen similar issues here on HN when people discuss emission per capita vs absolute emissions. A large portion of people who heard the warning and are aware of the effect of global warming, would still argue that reducing emissions where emissions are being created is unfair if emissions per capita is relative lower compared to other places. The two camps created from this has opposing strategies, even if both camps agree with the current situation.

Re: David Attenborough's 100th Birthday

#29

Post by anonu »

snorremd wrote: post #5

The sad thing is Attenborough has lived to see the destruction of nature he loved so much. His constant warnings have gone mostly unheard. In some ways I think excellent nature programming like his own Nature is doing a disservice by making it seem like there's lots of wild nature left. I wish humans would come together to re-wild more of the earth. Restoring wild nature and cutting emissions is the only way to reall…

Ultimately, it speaks to people's lifestyle choices. In the US people are used to a particular standard of living: driving big cars and eating big steaks. If you tell people you can't have those things, they will have a visceral reaction. Politicians caught wind of this and turned it into a divisive left vs right debate. Im oversimplifying, but at the core its an incentives problem: Why should I tighten my belt today for some future payoff I may not even be around to see?
Post reply on HN