Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN • Hacker News Board

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#11

Post by chmod775 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 9:50 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #2

So 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…

> Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system

I had a good laugh at this. It's only "rational" (or efficient) at optimizing the parameters we give it.

I'd argue that if "saving ourselves" is not a priority, then right now there are some important parameters missing.

If we'd put a sizable tax/cost on causing environmental harm, you can bet that "economic system" is gonna optimize the heck out of its processes to not cause that harm.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#12

Post by omosubi » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 9:52 AM UTC

ah765 wrote: post #9

I 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…

Losing 50% of species _is_ the loss of biodiversity by definition. Just about every species plays a vital role in maintaining a habitat and losing 1 or several has consequences that are hard to predict and could mean a drastic reduction in the ability to grow food and have clean water.

What incentives do scientists have to lie about this? Why is everyone so skeptical about warnings that scientists around the world agree on and have been saying for 20 or 30 years? It's maddening

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#13

Post by intended » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:02 AM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #4

intended wrote: post #2

So 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 dama…

That marketing book and the course that teaches marketers is run by Homo economicus.

The economy is very much built by Homo economicus. The consumers are just assume customer to be Homo economicus.

(except we know that it’s just poor old Homo sapiens, which is why the shiny stuff is at the checkout counter. Let’s ~~exploit~~ optimize for all those gaps in cognition.)

So I’d have to highlight that Economic man is hard at work, hacking Homo sapiens. ————

And that’s the issue, the rational choice for the world is very clear. But local equilibrium points are very different. People are going to clear the Amazon because that means they can sell more meat.

The cost of that externality will never get priced in fully, because it’s in the interest of people to pretend it’s someone else’s problem (especially when they’re people’s jobs and food on the line.)

I’m sorry for the bleak image, but let’s remind everyone that Kyoto was a joke. It’s the best we could manage and even then it was weak.

I understand everything you mean about externalities, but once you leave Econ talk, and move to policy - well Homo economicus is there, busy doing the rational thing and lobbying to keep his interests safe.

I predicted AGES ago and publicly a year or so, that we would all soon be championing terraforming projects.

What is the actual path forward, to an actual consensus. Whether we have to go through Homo economicus or corrupt him, or through reminding Homo sapiens that he is the only source of moral authority.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#14

Post by belorn » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:11 AM UTC

9712263 wrote: post #5

Terraforming 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…

bacteria in a jar grow and populate uniformly. Humans don't and tend to clump up in high population areas. Human population growth also tend to slow down with economical stability which is the opposite to bacterial growth.

As for mars, what we really need is to build technology that can make inhospitable places livable without infusing additional resources. A key point is water extraction, which would make a lot of desert environments much more hospitable with the right technology.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#15

Post by ah765 » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:13 AM UTC

omosubi wrote: post #12

ah765 wrote: post #9

I 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…

Losing 50% of species _is_ the loss of biodiversity by definition. Just about every species plays a vital role in maintaining a habitat and losing 1 or several has consequences that are hard to predict and could mean a drastic reduction in the ability to grow food and have clean water. What incentives do scientists have to lie about this? Why is everyone so skeptical about warnings that scientists around the world ag…

Losing 50% of species sounds bad, but much less bad than losing 50% of all mammal populations. Are we just talking about losing ten thousand obscure rodent species? I actually have no real idea what this value means, which makes me inclined to ignore it. A scientific source would be great, but the article doesn't provide any.

If we're talking about "human extinction" level threats, it would probably be from massive famines, and "half of the animals are now dead" seems much more likely to cause that than "half of animal species are extinct". What is the actual percentage estimate that we would go extinct from this, and when? It matters when comparing it to nuclear war or AI.

The incentive for scientists to lie seems obvious to me. They want people to support and fund their efforts (possibly for noble reasons, possibly because they just want more money). They think that simple facts aren't good enough, so they use fear tactics like "we could face our own extinction" hoping that will convince us instead.

Also, the authors of these articles and the people interviewed are not necessarily the scientists either. Given that sources aren't provided, I have no idea what the scientists are actually saying.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#16

Post by soneca » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

omosubi wrote: post #12

ah765 wrote: post #9

I 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…

Losing 50% of species _is_ the loss of biodiversity by definition. Just about every species plays a vital role in maintaining a habitat and losing 1 or several has consequences that are hard to predict and could mean a drastic reduction in the ability to grow food and have clean water. What incentives do scientists have to lie about this? Why is everyone so skeptical about warnings that scientists around the world ag…

I don't believe the GP disagrees that losing 50% of species is loss of biodiversity. But the OP might give the impression that is about losing 50% of animals, which seems more apocalyptic.

"What incentives do scientists have to lie about this?"

They might believe they are lying "in good faith". Exagerating the impact so people take action. Basically treating the rest of the world as children.

And this, like the GP, I too consider counter productive.

And a possible answer to "why is everyone so skeptical...". Because scientists (if taken as a homogenous group) are lying to us (as a group of lay people) for some time. Sometimes this lies are just exagerations made with good intentions, sometimes from bribed "scientists" like the ones who defended the tobacco industry, sometimes the scientists were just wrong but acted like they were 100% certain of their results (not technically a lie, but has the same impact on general population).

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#17

Post by intended » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:19 AM UTC

kingkawn wrote: post #3

intended wrote: post #2

So 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...

Globally, yeah sure. But all that will die is just most of humanity and the world - our current way of life. People survived worse, and people are busy building island getaways hoping to be those last few people standing.

Humans don’t act like a hive. Instead, we have local alliances and local optimums.

You know, I bet, right now, there’s a plan somewhere in America for what to do in a doomsday scenario to ensure survival of the American way of life.

Our way of life will end, our beautiful planet will lose its fish and insects and great fauna. But we’re busy creating fantasy world and games and movies. Kids are excited about magical beasts, and where to find them.

I’m being stark here, because I’m not finding an actual path to what I want ( a healthy planet and responsible species ). Instead the highest probable path I see is a husk of a planet and us figuring out a way to reintroduce life after terraforming is complete.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#18

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:22 AM UTC

ah765 wrote: post #15

omosubi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Losing 50% of species _is_ the loss of biodiversity by definition. Just about every species plays a vital role in maintaining a habitat and losing 1 or several has consequences that are hard to predict and could mean a drastic reduction in the ability to grow food and have clean water. What incentives do scientists have to lie about this? Why is everyone so skeptical about warnings that scientists around the world ag…

Losing 50% of species sounds bad, but much less bad than losing 50% of all mammal populations. Are we just talking about losing ten thousand obscure rodent species? I actually have no real idea what this value means, which makes me inclined to ignore it. A scientific source would be great, but the article doesn't provide any. If we're talking about "human extinction" level threats, it would probably be from massive f…

[deleted]

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#19

Post by intended » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:23 AM UTC

chmod775 wrote: post #11

intended wrote: post #2

So 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…

> Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system I had a good laugh at this. It's only "rational" (or efficient) at optimizing the parameters we give it. I'd argue that if "saving ourselves" is not a priority, then right now there are some important parameters missing. If we'd put a sizable tax/cost on causing environmental harm, you can bet that "economic system" is gonna optimize the…

Sure, that’s baked into my argument - it’s saying that should you actually account for externalities, that’s going to affect global GDP growth.

Sure in the long run we will have a better planet, but then famously in the long run we’re dead too.

I do not think there is a rational incentive for many firms to actually allow externalities to be priced in. Making investment in lobbying more valuable (and America is case in point; it’s been decades of FUD and denial).

This is just the rational business game plan. Delay the onset of regulation for as long as possible, maximize profits and then adapt to the new world of regulations (hopefully diversify by the time regulations hit)

I’m hoping someone has a way to argue that this is incorrect.

Re: Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN

#20

Post by justaaron » Sat, Nov 03, 2018, 10:27 AM UTC

9712263 wrote: post #5

Terraforming 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…

Holy guacamole. "easier to terraform mars or create a habitable satellite than saving earth"

this is the most ignorant thing I've ever seen written on the internet. Get back to me once you have 1/10000000th the bio-diversity of earth on your habitable satellite.

1) change our paradigms, economic system, and other social factors. I can assure you that this is far more maleable than Martian soil composition...

our social structures evolved in the context of low population densities and plentiful resources.

our economic system is what needs to give, it doesn't even function for humans, let alone the planet and the rest of life we share it with...

need I remind you that 1) we are only ONE species, and haven't the RIGHT to destroy our shared home, nor the other species. Some of us humans are upset about this, and we WILL take you other humans on over this issue!

2) our planet is STILL the only known place with LIFE in the entire universe. This is likely to change, at some point, but not if you get us all killed first.

3) our social systems are flexible, arbitrary, dare I say "PRETEND"... change em.