Live data from Hacker News

Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

washingtonpost.com

201–210 of 525 posts

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#201
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next U.S. federal election is an excellent opportunity to address climate change. Ensure that the Democratic primary chooses a leader with a good plan, and then ensure that he/she wins in 2020.

Except it's also not. As a continent, Asia is the largest polluter by far. What's worst, they're exporting those practices to Africa. Meanwhile, the Anglo-West is hyper-focused on the US because there's a president they don't like. This has been a blessing (now the average Anglo-Westerner at least pretends to care about the environment), but also a curse (they think the US is the only country that can save humanity).

The US gets the attention because they’re the only powerful country fighting against the sort of collective action we need to take.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#202

I have a theory, and I have no evidence to back this theory up. The increases in anxiety in the general public over the last decade or so is in large part to people knowing we're on an unsustainable path. We're all collectively marching towards the edge of the cliff to jump off together. More people than ever have anxiety because we subconsciously (or consciously) know this. We're unsustainable with how we pollute an…

The "Club of Rome" report[1] was published in the early 1970s. We've known for a long time. Still, most people probably still don't know, because they are too busy shopping for the latest shoes or cars.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe this is an incredibly dangerous attitude. Kudos that you're doing your part, and leading by example is important. However, systemic change is possible. We have numerous counter-examples: the UN, the Montreal protocol, free trade deals, et cetera. So why don't we have systemic change for climate change, because people like you and I let our politicians get away with it! If it was obvious to politicians that…

Maybe I wasn't very clear. I am not against systemic change. Surely we need to keep pushing for it. It's not either/or. We should use every method we can. On the other hand, recently I've been thinking about this. According to some theory it takes about 3.5% of the population to take part in active resistance to cause change ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YJSehRlU34w ). Now, 3.5% is clearly not a m…

It seems like this would be extremely difficult to accurately measure for many reasons. Two big ones immediately come to mind.

1) Confounding variables. She essentially states that she looked up resistance movements and then quantified what percent of people participated and the outcome. But there are going to be tremendous confounding factors here. While she does not offer much in the way of examples she did reference the most iconic examples - Gandhi and the US Civil Rights movement. The Civil Rights Movement has some great examples, but I think India is perhaps even more striking so let's just consider that.

The British Empire was collapsing into bankruptcy in 1946 following World War 2. They were only saved by an emergency loan from the United States. At the same time this was happening the world had become divided between two superpowers - the USSR and the USA. And neither of them looked fondly upon British imperialism. India would be granted independence in a matter of months - in 1947. And over the next 18 years so would nearly every former colony of India, regardless of the level of resistance. And indeed, our author here almost certainly also listed all of these incidents as successes of nonviolent resistance from tiny minorities, even though their independence was driven largely by outside factors.

2) The meaning of protest has changed in the age of the internet. In the 1960s organizing was extremely difficult and travel was expensive. Seriously, imagine trying to organize things when the best you have is a phone where you have to manually dial each and every number (and long distance was pricey!) or things like hanging up signs on street lights. And people getting places was costly. A one-way domestic flight could set you back nearly a thousand dollars. The net effect of this is that in times past a single person represented far more people than just themselves.

However today this has radically changed. Organizing people is completely trivial and free. Travel is still a burden but it's become much cheaper and easier than ever before. This also means that protests mean something entirely different. if there are a million people protesting something, it's entirely possible that these million people don't necessarily represent all that many people other than themselves.

This also makes me wonder about something else, but since it's a distinct point - I'll put it in another post.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#204
post #151

Hopefully this will make us ditch the planet and finally look towards the stars. But I fear it will actually lead us towards an "Interstellar" future: where our inter-planetary progress is hampered by this single planet that we want to save.

Do you mean ditch most of the animals too? Because it seems highly unlikely what we're going to take even 1% of animal species into space.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#205
post #18

We keep hearing that individual actions don't matter and that we need a system change instead. I used to hold the same opinion for the very long time. However, since recently I started to turn around. For the last 30 years governments and politicians have proven incapable to do anything about global heating. What makes us think it will be any different in the coming years. Scientists keep producing report after repor…

This. And also: The environment is an awesome way for people to virtue signal how much they care. But the fact is the real world consequences of what most environmentalists ask for would seriously affect the way of life they have. Politicians know this. Any serious attempt to change anything will not get you votes and out of government. That is not the governments fault. That is not the corporations fault. That is ev…

None of that sounds bad to me. Imagine how quiet it would be without cars and planes, and how much better the air quality would be. Perhaps obesity would even be curbed if people were eating local vegetables, fruits, and grains instead of fish, meat, dairy, and other animal products. What you have described doesn't sound like people are poor but living a leaner, simpler, healthier lifestyle.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#206
post #169

Racism is natural and, most importantly, technically correct.

WTF happened to this thread?

Well, you began by saying that this is all ok if we take a 100 million year longview. You might as well have sent out a personal invitation to the deranged.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#207
post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So bees are important, quick google search reveal the bee is important for pollination. So can't one of the solution be find alternative way for pollination. Maybe even robotic bees? With the advancement of robotic technology, its not far fetched to think that this is possible right ?

>quick google search reveal the bee is important for pollination. I suspect that you might not be the best informed person out there.

Ok, can u elaborate ? you mention about bees. I response that bee might be able to be replaced by some other method.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#208

Someone else commented: > If you have any investments shift them from fossil to green. I'm interested in ideas about how to do this. There are some MSCI indices along these lines like the "low carbon" ones[1]. But these still include fossil fuel companies, just with a lower weight. There are also "ex fossil fuel" indices[2], but these only exclude companies that dig up the fossil fuels, and not necessarily those that…

It's been discussed elsewhere, it's hard to find indices that are fossil-free that are also performant in the market. A lot of these supposedly fossil-free indices have some sketchy companies in them as well. Probably the best way to invest in green companies would be buying stocks of single companies you believe are making a difference.

Outside of that, supporting bonds that encourage low-carbon products/behaviors, or making personal changes in your energy use and lifestyle and taking the financial trade to lower your carbon footprint there. Things like buying an EV, lowering heating/cooling use, biking more, reducing waste, increasing efficiency, these may cost you in comfort or convenience but will pay the planet back.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#209

We keep hearing that individual actions don't matter and that we need a system change instead. I used to hold the same opinion for the very long time. However, since recently I started to turn around. For the last 30 years governments and politicians have proven incapable to do anything about global heating. What makes us think it will be any different in the coming years. Scientists keep producing report after repor…

Individual actions in this context are like trying to put down the fire with a single glass of water. It will certainly not hurt if you do it, but for it to have any significant effect you need everybody else to do the same at the same time. And the best way to have everyone do it is to push politicians to commit to it and create public policies to enforce it. The huge problem with individual actions is that they make people feel good about themselves, makes them feel like they did their part, while actually the effects of it are minimal.

Re: Up to one million species are on the verge of extinction, U.N. panel says

#210
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's also not. As a continent, Asia is the largest polluter by far. What's worst, they're exporting those practices to Africa. Meanwhile, the Anglo-West is hyper-focused on the US because there's a president they don't like. This has been a blessing (now the average Anglo-Westerner at least pretends to care about the environment), but also a curse (they think the US is the only country that can save humanity).

The US gets the attention because they’re the only powerful country fighting against the sort of collective action we need to take.

Would you mind substantiating that claim a bit? It seems false on the face of it, but I don’t want to strawman your argument just to shoot it down if there’s more to it.

Russia and China are not fighting against the sort of collective action we need to take?

Post reply on HN