Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
1–10 of 165 posts
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#2So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail?
Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms.
Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite price on a human life. Whether by market price discovery or by fiat, we are going to say, “there’s only this much we can spend”.
I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under domes, in the far future.
Is there some other plausible outcome?
———-
Edit: people are correctly targeting the rational part of markets, but here’s the counter.
It’s very rational for business firms to lobby against externalities being priced in. It’s rational for ranchers to cut forests for economic gains. And it’s rational for the many many people who are being propelled up out of poverty to want better food, clothing and power.
That guy burning crops in India says “shit, sorry for the bad smoke Delhi. But it costs too much to do anything else. Sucks to be you.”
That’s why my point on our economy being levered. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest to halt growth. Every % of global gdp growth is millions of people out of poverty.
Which is why the question. Are people really incentivized to bell the cat - to actually price in externalities ?
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#3So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…
Seems like a total failure of an empty concept of rationality if it can’t avoid extinguishing life itself...
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#4So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…
Rational? It's about as far from rational as it's possible to get.
Homo economicus is the perfect caricature, as humans usually make purchasing decisions for far from rational reasons. They buy for emotion, because of brand, etc. Read any current marketing book. The system within which we operate claims rationality solely on the basis of conveniently ignoring anything that might impinge: pollution, environmental damage, cost of cleanup or restoration of a site, societal and human damage. All of those get lumped in a category called "externalities" that might be more honestly labelled inconvenient truths.
A rational system would be more holistic and somehow account for the value of lives, planet, society and so on. It would find a market way to penalise those actors continuing to saw the branch on which humanity or other species sit.
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#5Terraforming Mars, or maybe just create a habitable satellite is easier than saving the earth. Current economical model fosters growing business, and only government regulation to deal with externality. Growing is intuitive to human activity, but restricting human growth is counter-intuitive.
I forget the link, but a lecture video using bacteria growth as a metaphor of human growth creeps me out. Supposed bacteria in a jar growth 2 times for 1 minutes, and the jar will be full in 1 hour. When will the jar be half full? Answer is at 59 minutes. At the time of 58 minutes, only 25% space is used. How many bacteria thinks the jar or the world will be full after 2 minutes?
The situation is similar to human, and we still cannot find a way to protect the environment and have economic growth at the same time. Maybe the end of human history is next 2 years but we still think its pretty okay and didn't notice anything unusual. Then maybe finding a new jar is the second best way to deal with it.
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#6Terraforming Mars, or maybe just create a habitable satellite is easier than saving the earth. Current economical model fosters growing business, and only government regulation to deal with externality. Growing is intuitive to human activity, but restricting human growth is counter-intuitive. I forget the link, but a lecture video using bacteria growth as a metaphor of human growth creeps me out. Supposed bacteria in…
It's this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCm2QQZVYk
And it's a great lecture, everyone should watch it.
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#7So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…
> I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under domes, in the far future.
> Is there some other plausible outcome?
Completely implausible. Who's going to pay for these "domes"?
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#8So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…
I get the impression you're not arguing that biodiversity preservation is bad or stupid, just economically not viable (i.e. there is not enough resource available to maintain this goal). One (arguably too) simple option is just to have governments tax offending businesses and pool these taxes into programs that support biodiversity. This is the more pro government-leaning viewpoint. The libertarian viewpoint is to have a bright, Elon Musk-like businessman or company that innovates into creating a cheaper and more sustainable solution to the business that's causing biodiversity loss, pressuring incumbent business to change.
Realistically, shouting "biodiversity" doesn't say all too much. What biodiversity? Deforestation is a different problem to the disappearance of the bee population (in terms of economic pressures on these things), and each needs to be tackled in a thoroughly researched, carefully considered manner. There probably isn't a single correct solution to this problem, and solving it will require a collection of viable solutions that incentivise economically, socially and morally.
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#9I agree with the big idea of conservation of biodiversity, but it really bothers me when these articles are using what seems like lies and fear tactics to convince me. 2 years? Why is it so urgent? The article doesn't explain. And "By 2050, Africa is expected to lose 50% of its birds and mammals," sounded really implausible to me. I had to do further research to determine that they are probably actually referring to "50% of species" rather than "50% of population", which is a very big difference that seems the opposite of what is implied. In this case, "face our own extinction" seems like a huge overexaggeration.
This kind of deception and disregard for actual facts makes me much less sympathetic to the cause.
Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
#10So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail? Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms. Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite p…
Markets just measure what we value.
If we put a price tag on different things, markets will shift.
We don't need to 'stop growth' we just need to grow differently.
We may need to slow down population growth, though.
"Is there some other plausible outcome?
Uhm, yes, people value walking around in clean air and would be willing to pay a premium for it.
It's one of the reasons people leave China and come to Canada, for example.