The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs • Hacker News Board

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#51

Post by ineedasername » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

partialrecall wrote: post #24

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

If a true fact is playing in to a false narrative, there is a problem with how it's being presented. Calling that out is just as important as calling out falsehoods.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#52

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

orwin wrote: post #49

pdonis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually) The global average temperature has been higher than that in the past, and there was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere.

> The global average temperature has been higher than that in the past Yes > there was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere. Well, citation needed.

>there was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere. Well, citation needed.

Isn’t that entirely the basis of the giant flora and fauna we know existed?

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#53

Post by gambiting » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #39

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

> having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually) The global average temperature has been higher than that in the past, and there was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere.

Yes, but the temperature rose to those levels over millenia, not just hundreds of years. Ultimately, life on Earth will adapt - it's just that we might not survive long enough to witness the adaptation.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#54

Post by meiraleal » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #48

leetcrew wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It might make you feel good to write that, but there are much bigger lies being told. if you held the opposite position in this debate, you would probably call this "whataboutism".

No, lying is bad and for whatever critiques you can have of my point, it's not whataboutism. You can say it's cynical, but I believe people lie all the time and I should be economical with my precious time when arguing on the internet. But if you think the categorization of the Amazon as the Earth's lungs is above that criteria for you, then I will not stop you even though I will think it's ridiculous.

> But if you think the categorization of the Amazon as the Earth's lung is above that criteria for you,

It is, if your stand is from a country that destroyed its own natural forest and now demand that a country of 200million people should not use 60% of its own territory to save the world while half of its people is poor.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#55

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

[deleted]

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#56

Post by asplake » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:32 PM UTC

News just in: the metaphor is not the thing

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#57

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

meiraleal wrote: post #54

throwaway5752 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, lying is bad and for whatever critiques you can have of my point, it's not whataboutism. You can say it's cynical, but I believe people lie all the time and I should be economical with my precious time when arguing on the internet. But if you think the categorization of the Amazon as the Earth's lungs is above that criteria for you, then I will not stop you even though I will think it's ridiculous.

> But if you think the categorization of the Amazon as the Earth's lung is above that criteria for you, It is, if your stand is from a country that destroyed its own natural forest and now demand that a country of 200million people should not use 60% of its own territory to save the world while half of its people is poor.

[deleted]

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#58

Post by djsumdog » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:33 PM UTC

partialrecall wrote: post #24

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

Yea, you shouldn't deny a reality because you believe in the noble lie.

And to be fair, climate change is turned into a crazy red hearing of a political issue. There are lakes of sludge outside factory cities in China, insane amounts of plastic particulates in the oceans, tons and tons of textile waste. There are so many many forms of pollution much worse than CO2, and when you focus on just CO2, you get carbon laws like those enacted in Australia briefly that caused more fuel expenditure in moving ore to China for processing instead of processing it domestically.

There needs to be a huge change in consumption. We need cell phones that last 10 years, not 2~3. We need to end the constant replacement cycle. Intel's shareholders should be glad when sales are below projections because the old chips are lasting longer.

But this is not how our economy or industry works. It's all based about infinite growth, selling you new things, sending your e-waste to Africa to be harvested by kids and be smeltered in recycling shops without OSHA requirements or respirators, sending textile waste to Africa to be sold (but mostly burned), etc. etc.

Until there is a major collapse globally and people recognize the scale of our folly of consumerism and over-consumption, people will not recognize the real changes needed to build a more sustainable world. And reducing overall consumption will also reduce CO2 emissions ... along with all types of other emissions. But it will take reduction. We cannot spend and buy our way out of environmental damage.

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#59

Post by partialrecall » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:34 PM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #51

partialrecall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adherence to the truth is more important than adherence to a narrative. Promoting a good cause by allowing falsehoods to spread may seem helpful in the short term, but in doing so you're building a house on a foundation of sand. When you promote trivial falsehoods instead of calling them out, you allow your opposition to be the one who calls out those falsehoods, and thus undermine your cause. When somebody on your s…

If a true fact is playing in to a false narrative, there is a problem with how it's being presented. Calling that out is just as important as calling out falsehoods.

The article contextualizes the truth in terms of the pro-climate narrative,

> "Losing the Amazon, beyond representing a planetary historic tragedy beyond measure, would also make meeting the ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement all but impossible. World leaders need to marshal all their political and diplomatic might to save it."

So what exactly are you calling out? Better the Atlantic be the one to call out this falsehood, than Fox News. No?

Re: The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

#60

Post by input_sh » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:35 PM UTC

BeefySwain wrote: post #46

input_sh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? The answer is simple, the execution is hard and will piss a lot of people off: start treating red meat as a luxury item, and slowly introduce taxes on top of its price, like we do for alcohol and tobacco. Nothing drastic of course, just a few cents extra every half a year or so to make people reconsider their eating habits again and again. Bu…

Do we have time to do it "just a few cents extra every half a year or so"? From what I read, that would have worked if we started in the 80's or so.

I personally believe that there's no way we'll undo the damage. Unless some drastic change happens in a way we govern ourselves really quickly, the best we could hope for is to minimize the negative effects of our actions.

As such, any positive action is better than none.