Birds Are Vanishing from North America • Hacker News Board

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#291

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 7:48 AM UTC

andrey_utkin wrote: post #282

socialist_coder wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, but I also think it is important to note that what you are describing is baked into our entire economic system. Economic actors all acting rationally in their own best interest, which automatically filters out any long term multi-generational outlook. Capitalism is the root cause here.

Following one's desires is baked into our biology, and economic system is just the consequence. Kittens don't know about capitalism but they follow their desires. Capitalism is just a mental framework which helps to satisfy one's desires in a big way without the need to kill people. Full socialism, while very interesting to many here, especially when it comes to the final happy picture, unfortunately involves killing…

There are different ways of looking at the "capitalism is the root cause here".

One is, "therefore let's get rid of capitalism and replace it with socialism/anarchy/whatever", which is generally a bad idea (and history proves that). Another is, "therefore let's focus on capitalism when looking for particular issues to fix, find those issues and fix them, without breaking the whole thing". Aka. not throwing out baby with the bathwater. I'm not sure if GP had the second thing in mind, but this would be the approach I think is best.

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#292

Post by ptah » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 7:55 AM UTC

bsmitty5000 wrote: post #2

This article doesn't mention the declining insect population at all but I would think it's clear that a quickly declining food source would be a major cause of population decline. I wonder if there's a similar decline in other animals that rely on insects, eg bats. Although, interestingly, the article does mention neonicotinoids as a direct reason for the decline in population. It's hard to imagine humans taking the…

> the article does mention neonicotinoids as a direct reason for the decline in population

current administration is firmly behind even further decline: https://newfoodeconomy.org/neonicotinoid-ban-reversal-center...

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#293

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 7:57 AM UTC

aeternum wrote: post #33

technothrasher wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or we die out and the planet recovers on its own. That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the planet to recover to. Without us, the planet would just go on changing, without anything to judge the current environment at any point as good or bad to any particular standard. Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's also unlikely that all humans would die out even from severe climate change given our current technology. You could say that saving the environment is just saving the current set of humans, or our modern way of life. It definitely sounds much less noble when put that way though.

Which is all the reason to remember that, whatever we do, we absolutely cannot break our civilization's ability to maintain existing level of technology and improve on it. If we do break it, we're done. The Gulf Stream shutting down would be tough, but survivable. Global economy shutting down would be game over for humanity, preceded by unprecedented amounts of suffering.

> You could say that saving the environment is just saving the current set of humans, or our modern way of life. It definitely sounds much less noble when put that way though.

If you compare "our modern way of life" and the promises ahead to past millennia of humanity, it actually does sound very noble. I wouldn't wish medieval or ancestral life on my worst enemy.

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#294

Post by Jweb_Guru » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:02 AM UTC

rectangletangle wrote: post #289

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were hugely disruptive and set off a massive extinction event... not to moralize the actions of cyanobacteria (who obviously act without agency), but the only reason we think what they did was fine is that we breathe oxygen!

This is the brilliance of natural selection. If it were any less robust life would probably have already gone extinct. It's "easy" to devastate the ecosystem and wipe out say 90% of biodiversity, but that remaining 10% becomes increasingly difficult to root out, as you're increasingly dealing with the hardened survivors. The massive bust leaves open ample under exploited niches, which then spurs rapid disruptive sele…

Well, sure, there's stuff like anoxic life that lives off dissolved hydrogen in rock and will be mostly unaffected by anything we do. But the vast majority of life on Earth is exploiting the huge energy gradients created on the surface by sunlight and exploited by photosynthesis, and that's what most people are thinking of nowadays when we talk about "life on Earth".

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#295

Post by peterashford » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:07 AM UTC

elliottkember wrote: post #137

I'm from New Zealand, which has a lot of birds, and I live in California. The forests here are eerily quiet, I hate it. Back home the birdsong in forests is deafening.

We're managing to make species go extinct at a great rate, too, unfortunately. Habit loss is probably the biggest issue

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#296

Post by raxxorrax » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:12 AM UTC

bsmitty5000 wrote: post #2

This article doesn't mention the declining insect population at all but I would think it's clear that a quickly declining food source would be a major cause of population decline. I wonder if there's a similar decline in other animals that rely on insects, eg bats. Although, interestingly, the article does mention neonicotinoids as a direct reason for the decline in population. It's hard to imagine humans taking the…

> or we die out and the planet recovers on its own.

I think all these scenarios are unrealistic. If at all, and that is still a big if, only the vast majority would die.

So hooray, I guess.

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#297

Post by hailk » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:20 AM UTC

rectang wrote: post #233

refurb wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m challenging the predominant belief that anything humans do is “bad and unnatural” and anything animals do is “good and natural”, even though man is just as natural as any other organism on earth. That premise doesn’t really hold up to rationale examination. To continue the thought experiment, if the beetle infection was not due to any impact of humans, should we try and stop it to preserve the forests? By the abo…

The universe is indifferent. Humans don't have to be.

Human indifference isn't a binary state. I can drive around in a big SUV, doesn't mean I'm indifferent. All the people in the world can't, nor are obligated to care exactly as much as you do. Telling people otherwise is just moralising.

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#298

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:27 AM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #211

technothrasher wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or we die out and the planet recovers on its own. That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the planet to recover to. Without us, the planet would just go on changing, without anything to judge the current environment at any point as good or bad to any particular standard. Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

> That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the planet to recover to. If you want to know what the natural state for an area is, ask a native person from a population that has un uninterrupted culture, that is if you can find one. A native person I know often describes a discorded ecosystem by saying: "The land is sick." To equivocate and to claim all states are equally natural, is to de…

Such a native person can compare what they see to what they lived in the past, or at best to what the cultural memory can still vividly recall. Which is at best few hundred years.

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#299

Post by TeMPOraL » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:28 AM UTC

richardknop wrote: post #158

jacobolus wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it comes down to a matter of survival, humans as a species will figure out a way to get what needs to be done, done. Don’t count on it. Human civilization depends heavily on trust and cooperation, and a large number of complex systems functioning which nobody completely understands and most people barely notice. The whole endeavor is quite fragile. Once basic systems start breaking down, people start starving an…

In case of major disaster such as meteorite hitting a metropolitan area, just in time logistics systems mean most major cities such as New York or London have enough food to survive for 2-3 days. If something happens that disrupts the supply chain 10 of millions of people will be starving in couple days. Imagine if something serious happened. In a week there would be anarchy and total collapse of law and order.

Which is why the most important constraint in dealing with climate change is ensuring that scenario never happens.

Re: Birds Are Vanishing from North America

#300

Post by Angostura » Fri, Sep 20, 2019, 8:32 AM UTC

technothrasher wrote: post #16

bsmitty5000 wrote: post #2

This article doesn't mention the declining insect population at all but I would think it's clear that a quickly declining food source would be a major cause of population decline. I wonder if there's a similar decline in other animals that rely on insects, eg bats. Although, interestingly, the article does mention neonicotinoids as a direct reason for the decline in population. It's hard to imagine humans taking the…

> or we die out and the planet recovers on its own. That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the planet to recover to. Without us, the planet would just go on changing, without anything to judge the current environment at any point as good or bad to any particular standard. Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

I strongly disagree. I don't believe in an natural ideal state, however I can distinguish between a planet with a large number of species living in a biologically diverse set of ecosystems; an a biologically impoverished planet with fewer species and biomes.

I think it is fair to say that complexity and variety is a objectively good thing and that humanity's action causing a mass extinction event is objectively bad.

That's not to say that mass extinctions or biome change will occur without us.