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

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

#391

Post by UnFleshedOne » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

rjf72 wrote: post #284

kilroy123 wrote: post #120

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…

There was an absolutely phenomenal piece written recently: "How the news took over reality" [1] It goes into some degree of depth about why it is exactly that ever more people are increasingly feeling every pulse of every issue. And why it's not necessarily a great thing. Consider something. Today, by most metrics, is by far the most stable and safe time that we've ever lived in during humanity's existence. This seem…

Bulletin Of Atomic Scientists [1] disagrees with both your statements: nuclear annihilation is out of public mind, but it is not much less probable, and climate change is, among other things, a risk factor there. Global catastrophic risks are often interconnected.

[1] - https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/

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

#392

Post by kaybe » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

komaromy wrote: post #55

TeMPOraL wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We could perhaps 3 or 4 decades ago have made a collective decision to gradually reduce consumption and allow our home to survive in decent enough shape to sustain us. One thing we know about humans is that, as a species, we were never and are not currently capable of making such collective decisions or otherwise coordinating at this scale. This is probably the root of most problems we have, except death and diseas…

Collective action has worked in the past. We did it with CFCs.

Side note:

There is a quite recent amendment to the Montreal treaty, the Kigali amendment (2016), which phased out the CFC replacements with strong greenhouse effects in favour of replacements without them. This alone will save us ~0.3° warming until 2100 (if the projections are right).

This is about the only positive news I've ever seen for this topic.

https://ozone.unep.org/sites/default/files/Assessment_Panel/... (eg page ES.23 & ES.24)

(I really love those charts.)

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

#393

Post by rjf72 » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #364

rjf72 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was an absolutely phenomenal piece written recently: "How the news took over reality" [1] It goes into some degree of depth about why it is exactly that ever more people are increasingly feeling every pulse of every issue. And why it's not necessarily a great thing. Consider something. Today, by most metrics, is by far the most stable and safe time that we've ever lived in during humanity's existence. This seem…

The issues faced by previous generations were temporary. Wars end, new treaties are signed, etc. Climate Change is irreversible if we don't act ahead of time.

How would they know they would be temporary? The Cold War lasted more than 40 years without stopping and no clear way out. People grew up knowing nothing but the Cold War. They had children who knew nothing but the Cold War. Each and every day people woke up realizing there was a very real chance this could be their last one on Earth. And in several instances we came extremely close to that becoming true. For instance a single man, Stanislav Petrov [1], is likely single-handedly responsible for stopping nuclear war at one point. We certainly wouldn't be here concerning ourselves over climate change had there had been a lesser man in his role!

And wars of time past were not like today's proxy wars or petrodollar warring. See Generalplan Ost [2]. Hitler planned to colonize central and eastern Europe by engaging in the mass genocide of native Slavic peoples, people who numbered in the hundreds of millions. And it's extremely unlikely he'd stop there. This is the sort of war where if you lose, the suffering has only just begun. And this was the reality of life for people in one way or another, for centuries.

'Irreversible' is somewhat misleading as used in climate discussion. It's used in the same sense as saying that the above consequences would be irreversible. And in that sense it's completely true. But many people interpret it, as you seem to be implying, to mean impossible to ever reverse. What it really means is that the expected return to a climatic equilibrium, through entirely natural processes, would take a length of time outside the scale of a human lifetime - hundreds to thousands of years. It does not mean permanently irreversible nor does it mean we go full Venus. And perhaps most importantly, technological changes such as carbon scrubbing [3] - which already exists but is not yet economically viable as a solution, altogether negate the notion of 'irreversible'.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber

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

#394

Post by kaybe » Mon, May 06, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #98

zpeti wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think this take is largely true. I think there is a path to saving the climate even when so many are completely unwilling to sacrifice any bit of their livelihood for a sustainable climate for future generation. That path consists of heavy, heavy investment in geo-engineering and low-cost nuclear right now. As soon as we have perfected solar geo-engineering, we need to put it in place to prevent catastrophic runawa…

The only real option is carbon capture.

Everything else has the wonkiest side effects in the models, eg concerning atmosphere/ocean circulation, which heavily affects local and regional weather patterns, and the cooling is still not sufficient.

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

#395

Post by wonderwonder » Mon, May 06, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

kilroy123 wrote: post #120

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…

I would argue that the increase in anxiety is due to the growing wealth gap. Compounding that is the fact that those in control are actively working on maintaining that gap and will allow nothing to stand in the way, including the environment. The gap is growing worse and will continue to do so and that relentless pursuit of wealth at the top and the hopelessness of those in the middle is making the environment worse. If I am barely surviving and I feed my kids with wages from a polluting industry, with no other option I will vote for those that allow my wages to continue, and damn the torpedoes, even though deep down I know I am making the world worse (further compounding my anxiety and despair). See the coal industry.

So many of us exist in quiet desperation.

People struggling to survive are focused on their next meal or rent payment and while not destroying the world tomorrow sounds good, they are more concerned with what they have to deal with today.

The environment is a side effect of civilizations profit at all costs mentality. Unfortunately this outlook will continue to do as it has always done, reward the few at the top and punish everyone else.

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

#396

Post by ivanhoe » Mon, May 06, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

perfunctory wrote: post #227

ivanhoe wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mak…

> 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. How is this a huge problem? What's wrong about feeling good about yourself when you are doing something good? It's actually great. You help the climate AND you feel good. Win-win. Just imagine what a hell the life would be if doing some…

Problem is not that people feel good, problem is that they're concentrating on insignificant actions and it gives them a false sense of doing enough - so they stop at that, guilty-free, but without doing anything actually impactful. It's actually a very common form of self delusion, we all do that by drinking that diet-soda after we just ate a full box of ice-cream while on a diet, or in social media by liking and retweeting calls for help or action, while never really following through to actually help or take part in that action. It dilutes the outcome, lots of momentum gets wasted that way.

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

#397

Post by wazoox » Mon, May 06, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

pmayrgundter wrote: post #384

wazoox wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a pretty good one IMO (loooong read): https://jancovici.com/en/readings/societies/the-limits-to-gr... Another article that explains well what the model does, that economists do as if matter and laws of physics didn't exist (unless they're of the rare breed of Georgescu-Roegen's disciples): https://jancovici.com/en/energy-transition/societal-choices/... Another article from another source: https://dothemath.uc…

This (esp the first figure) reminds me of economics research on long waves: http://joshuagoldstein.com/jgcycle.htm

Thanks, looks like an interesting read.

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

#398

Post by MiroF » Mon, May 06, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

kaybe wrote: post #394

MiroF wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this take is largely true. I think there is a path to saving the climate even when so many are completely unwilling to sacrifice any bit of their livelihood for a sustainable climate for future generation. That path consists of heavy, heavy investment in geo-engineering and low-cost nuclear right now. As soon as we have perfected solar geo-engineering, we need to put it in place to prevent catastrophic runawa…

The only real option is carbon capture. Everything else has the wonkiest side effects in the models, eg concerning atmosphere/ocean circulation, which heavily affects local and regional weather patterns, and the cooling is still not sufficient.

Carbon capture is not remotely feasible given the cost/intrinsic limitations in how to get the carbon out of the air.

Sulfur dioxide has been shown to work in real life experiments (read: volcanic eruptions) and while t has some side effects, it’s a known quantity and the benefits generally outweigh the costs.

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

#399

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 06, 2019, 8:11 PM UTC

ada1981 wrote: post #263

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also have a theory. Anxiety is increasing because anxiety sells. The right leaning sites raise anxiety about immigrants. Left leaning sites raise anxiety that Trump is on his way to becoming a dictator. Environmental sites raise anxiety about species going extinct. Business sites raise anxiety about increase regulation and taxes. Meanwhile, humans are the best off we have ever been. This is one of the most peaceful…

What you are saying is true. However never before have we humans been on the cusp of ecological collapse.

[deleted]

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

#400

Post by squish78 » Mon, May 06, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #354

kingkawn wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a related theory, that rather than our rise in anxiety being because of an analytic understanding of doom, we are more anxious because the environment is becoming unfamiliar, and we as animals still are not comfortable with such a fundamental shift in the world around us.

Since we’re trading theories, I’ll jump in! My theory is that we are destroying the environment because of our anxiety. It leads us to want to control things and accumulate safety in tangible, physical and dollar form. And the more we do that, the more we destroy the environment. And of course, that also leads to further anxiety as you’ve all pointed out. So, therapy for everyone - heal people’s desperate fears and t…

I'm optimistic about the research being done in psychedelic therapy for this reason. Take a capsule, lose your ego, understand your place in nature, and put your mind back together - all in an afternoon session.