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

The Ocean is Broken (2013)

theherald.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 246 posts

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#181

Post by cfontes »

pdonis wrote: post #168
dredmorbius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there is no way in which you can eat food and not have some negative impact. Actually, no, there are, collectively . Humans have existed, give or take, for a couple million years. In modern form for about 80,000, and with present levels of cognition, for around 10,000. For most of that time, humans most certainly did affect local ecosystems (and sometimes in significant fashion), but had relatively little impact on t…

what's desperately required is to reduce total population levels. By a lot. Got any ideas on how to do that?

Only Pub talking. But since I consider all of you friends there is no harm in it.

It's simple.

People will die. In Billions. By famine, diseases and war.

I think this is a inevitable future for our race.

Nature made us too god at modifying it for it's own sake. The planet will survive. Maybe not with us but life will.

We are just to stupid and "NOW aligned" to do anything else as a species. That's my opinion anyway.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#182

Post by cfontes »

dredmorbius wrote: post #129
sliverstorm wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was talking about the anguish of simply having an impact , as I judged that to be what my parent was really thinking about. Of killing an animal for food, or even a plant. Of cutting down a tree to build a house, or trapping and killing a rat in that house. Of lumbering forests, because it's not right, not fair to the forest and its inhabitants ( not because it's unsustainable) It doesn't matter if it's sustainable…

I was talking about the anguish of simply having an impact ... What does sustainability matter to the cow you just ate? You've made a number of posts emphasizing that you're not addressing sustainability. In which case: I don't think you're focusing on a particularly relevant part of the discussion. I see the construction of "having an impact" as a largely irrelevant distraction. Death is part of the cycle of life. W…

"Choice is, in many ways, oversold. Literally."

This is briliant!!!

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#183

Post by pdonis »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #179
pdonis wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This counts as reducing human environmental impact (on Earth, at least), but I was asking specifically about ideas for reducing human population levels by a lot.

The answer is we don't, at least willingly. We should be optimistic rather than pessimistic. The other answer is to get rich, which lowers birthrates faster than anything else. Beats a modest proposal.

Just to be clear, I agree with being optimistic rather than pessimistic. I was just wondering if the poster I responded to would be willing to be explicit about how he thinks the reduction of population he claims is needed would be accomplished.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#184

Post by tolmasky »

leobelle wrote: post #134
tolmasky wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What are you doing for your part" is equivalent to nothing, UNLESS you are perhaps paradoxically working in finance to become rich enough to have enough money and/or influence to someday have a real effect on these problems. Or maybe actively researching sustainable technologies, or part of a pro-environmental lobbyist group or something. Don't kid yourself: if you want to stand on a high horse understand that your…

I don't kid myself, you're kidding yourself if you do not think that individual behaviors cause considerable impact on a vast scale in aggregate. The "high-horse" line is just a personal attack that doesn't have any merit in the argument, and really I shouldn't have bothered to respond to you because of it.

This is classic "if everyone just ___" logic, which is a logical fallacy. You admit to as much yourself, these things only matter in the aggregate, and our individual behaviors are independent events that do not affect each other, and thus do not affect the "aggregate". That is to say, you're not eating meat does not cause others to not eat meat in any way that scales, which is the only possibly valid reasoning to it ever making a difference. If it did, if it had some sort of domino affect, it would be a valid criticism, but it isn't. You not eating meat has only the measurable affects on your life and margin of error effects on this problem. To further understand the absurdity of this thinking, apply it to anything else: let's say you don't want to go to the movies, and I say "but what if NO ONE goes, then the movie theaters will go bankrupt!" You would appropriately call me insane, but this is the exact same reasoning. I could respond in the exact same way: "leobelle, don't you understand that individual actions have considerable impact in the aggregate". Yes, they do, but that's besides the point because your individual action does not on its own affect the other individual actions making up "the aggregate".

The "high horse" comment, btw, is completely justified due to your clear moral judgement on OP for not "doing his part", which you then proceeded to give ineffectual advice regarding.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#185

Post by dredmorbius »

stretchwithme wrote: post #177
dredmorbius wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think stretchwithme is actually fairly accurate in his portrayal of the tragedy of the commons. The key is the externalities must be internalized . The problem arises where "privatization" is floated as the answer to a resource overconsumption situation, but where the property boundaries of what is privatized don't encompass the entire set of externalities. You nail this in your criticism of the hypothetical WalMar…

The future value of a resource is reflected in its resale value. Most people don't destroy their homes because they hope to resell them. Of course, some resources have value simply because they exist. And nobody pays for the privilege of knowing or looking at them. A body of water provides such value to everybody that can look out the window at it. If we did have ways to "own" the view, better decisions could be made…

The future value of a resource is reflected in its resale value.

No: the market's present assessment of an asset's future value with relation to the present state of the market is what its (re)sale price shows.

There is a difference between "price" and "value", and it's a long, long discussion. Smith reflects on it at length in Wealth of Nations, particularly the distinction between the "natural" and "market" prices of commodities: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm#link2H...

The longer discussion involves much of what is now called economic discourse prior to Smith, see generally Backhouse, The Ordinary Business of Life http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780691116297-1

In particular, the market can grossly overvalue items (bubbles), and it can put premiums on present consumption during times of crisis (e.g., burning books or artworks for their heat value in wartime).

And there are goods of immense value for which no or limited markets exist: air and water, in general (assuming you can capture these from the skies or collect them from the land).

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#186

Post by stretchwithme »

dredmorbius wrote: post #185
stretchwithme wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The future value of a resource is reflected in its resale value. Most people don't destroy their homes because they hope to resell them. Of course, some resources have value simply because they exist. And nobody pays for the privilege of knowing or looking at them. A body of water provides such value to everybody that can look out the window at it. If we did have ways to "own" the view, better decisions could be made…

The future value of a resource is reflected in its resale value. No: the market's present assessment of an asset's future value with relation to the present state of the market is what its (re)sale price shows. There is a difference between "price" and "value", and it's a long, long discussion. Smith reflects on it at length in Wealth of Nations , particularly the distinction between the "natural" and "market" prices…

I think resale value generally refers to its price.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#187

Post by joveian »

anigbrowl wrote: post #140
leobelle wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not eat meat and I do not have to eat more food than I did when I did eat meat. You've made a statement of fact, but it's at best highly ambiguous, but probably just outright false. You're confusing a bunch of nutritional concepts and coming to a non-sequitur conclusion.

That's not what I meant at all - there are plenty of other non-meat sources of protein, from cheese to nuts, depending on how vegan you are. Once again, what I'm taking issue with is the notion that because 8 units of grain are needed to provide 1 unit of beef, the units are nutritionally identical. Making weight for weight comparisons as above is what's a non-sequitur.

Getting such comparisons fully correct is certainly hard, but I don't think it goes the way you think it does in this case... looking at a few different specific possibilities for "beef" and "grain", the "grain" looks to usually be nearly twice the calories of the "beef" per pound. Humans do not actually need huge amounts of protein and there is rarely a (medical) need to go out of your way to get protein no matter what your diet is.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#188

Post by weirddog »

MereInterest wrote: post #164
pm90 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't supposed to make you feel better at all; just to make you aware of the fact that the Earth will probably survive even if you, me and all of our descendents don't.

Not in the slightest. It is the conscious mind that gives meaning to the world around it. There is no splendor in nature that is not in the eyes of those watching it. We have seen no evidence of any intelligence beyond our own. If we die, all meaning goes out of the world.

Ironically, this is the same foolish anthropocentric sentiment that is preventing most people to care about the environment. Congrats, you're part of the problem.

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#189

Post by calroc »

chrissyb wrote: post #166
dredmorbius wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. You're failing to articulate what you are talking about. 2. Sustainability is what matters.

Sustainability is an over hyped and misunderstood term. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4005

Will there still be humans in 300,000,000 million years?

Re: The Ocean is Broken (2013)

#190

Post by spurgu »

pertinhower wrote: post #52
hairama wrote: post #19

This is a great story--unfortunately, it's just that, a story. It's not surprising to me that there are people recklessly over-fishing, but without any numbers, no government can take action to stop it. On a tangential point, earth-life has survived five mass-extinction events, and a future one is almost certain. This doesn't negate the tragic, useless destruction of life, but the earth itself--and some form of life…

Is this supposed to make me feel better? I'm real happy for the earth surviving and all, but I want to survive too, and I want people to survive. A philosophy of, "The earth will survive though we'll be gone—and maybe that will be justice," is ridiculous, because if we're gone, who will be left to celebrate the justice? Justice lies in the conscious mind, and if the conscious mind is gone, justice goes too.

Dolphins and whales, hopefully. But they're most likely gone long before us.
Post reply on HN