Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway9990 | Hacker News Reader

Posting from a throwaway because politics.

Wouldn't there also be more different fish now especially in places that used to be covered by ice? Sure, some species might die off but you might get more new species as well. Some new fish perhaps that is good at living in lower oxygen concentration. Also, the fish that lived in the tropics can move to subtropics and so on.

I see it as more of a change that's not really bad or good. As Joe Carlin once said, the Earth will be fine.

Here is the clip: https://youtu.be/EjmtSkl53h4

View on HN

It's George Carlin, not joe, and he was a commedian - a good one - not a scientist, and his point, in case you missed it was that humans won't necessarily be around for the earth healing part II.

Earth will be fine, but we, you, me all the other humans, need earth to be healthy so that we can continue to exist, as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly and all our hydroponics tech won't save us if we don't have oxygen in the air to live off.

Keep in mind that the atmospheric oxygen is there to a very large extent because the oceans act as the planet's lungs.

Lower oxygen in the oceans means less life in the oceans and ultimately less oxygen in the atmosphere, which affects all life on earth, including us. So unless you feel a planet with mostly just plant and insect life is 'fine' you probably need to review that piece a couple of times to get the real impact of it, in which Carlin's prediction is that we won't make it.

> as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly

Would you mind elaborating on this? It's not clear to me how we would be less dependent on lower branches of the food chain if we weren't apex predators.

The key is extremely. As an example, DDT sprayed to get rid of certain insects killed off a large number of birds at the top of the food chain, such trouble tends to concentrate. So poison the lower levels and the intermediate levels might survive but the apex species will suffer the most.

Oh, if you're referring to biological magnification then yes, but that's not the problem we're talking about, right? We're talking about global warming, which leads to species dying off (due to habitat loss, etc.) rather than staying alive but accumulating toxins... that's where I don't get how things would be any different if we were lower in the food chain?

We have many more points of dependency. So a malfunction in the machinery of life is more likely to be disastrous the further up the pyramid one lives. At the apex of the pyramid, we are dependent on the entire pyramid being structurally sound. And consider: we are already in the midst of the worst die-off of species since the dinosaurs. So the pyramid is already crumbling.

> We have many more points of dependency. So a malfunction in the machinery of life is more likely to be disastrous the further up the pyramid one lives.

You're just repeating the claim, and again, I do not follow the logic. Again, my question is: why would it be less disastrous if we were lower in the food chain? It would help to give an example of a species at a lower position in our food web and explain why, if we took its position, we'd be better off.

I'm not "just repeating the claim". If you're at the bottom of the pyramid, you only need sunlight and water. If half the animals die off, you're fine. The higher up you are, the more species below on which you are dependent. You're only dependent on what's below, not what's above. With us at the top, a 50% die-off would be catastrophic.

In that case I believe you're saying something else, not answering the question I had asked. The sentence I replied to was this:

> as apex predators we are extremely dependent on the lower branches of the foodchain working properly

Again, I repeat my question: if we were lower in the food web, wouldn't we still depend on branches of the food web lower than you? That seems to be true regardless of where you are on the food web. In fact, wouldn't we be more susceptible to harm if we had fewer possible sources of food? One would expect that the fewer alternatives we have, the worse off we would be, right?

It's the exact same effect but through a different path. Thinnk of it as a house, no matter where the house develops problems you'll always see it in the roof.

Not sure I understand the analogy. What classes of problems a house can develop structurally that are primarily visible standing on the roof, before the whole thing collapses? Or do you mean that even a partial collapse always affects things above it?

Any change in the structure of a house will typically affect the roofline. That's why checking the roofline is a very good thing to do when purchasing a house, if the roof is straight that is an important data point about walls and foundation supporting that roof. A sagging roof is a sure sign of problems in the rest of the building, rarely a sign of trouble with the roof itself.

Thanks! I'll remember that if I'll need to buy a house.

I understand your logic about the house but I don't see why it is an apt analogy. It would help to explain what kinds of problems you are imagining for the house and what they could correspond to in the food web, both at the lower and upper levels.

I posted the clip because it's a lighthearted argument about the reasons we're pursuing environmentalism.

I think a lot of current hysteria it is driven by petroleum politics and geopolitics. Otherwise, both parties in US government would have been pro-environmentalism. Try to think of why someone might have a different position given that they understand the science.

Finally, regarding humans surviving. What is the ultimate number of humans that should exist on earth? How much environmental damage or "change" is allowed to sustain these humans or for "progress" to occur? How many children should humans be allowed to have? Who gets to decide these things? Should humans be allowed to develop new industries at the expense of the environment?

Some people think that it's best to live in tribes and forego all technology. Some are content living with current tech advancement and keeping population at about what it is now. Others think humans should spread to as many planets as possible.

If you're not going to say anything, you could use fewer words to do so.

The adaptations you're talking about happen over centuries.

The changes you're talking about are happening over decades.

These changes will not be limited to just the oceans.

And the main takeaway point from that George Carlin clip that I can find is that the planet will be fine because people won't be. I can only assume you didn't bother to watch it before posting it for others to watch.

Adaptations can happen within a decade. Look into radiotrophic fungi near Chernobyl.

Fungi are not a very good example of such adaptability when you are mainly talking about vertebrates.

The adaptations you are talking about were in fungi, in the presence of radiation which didn't kill them.

This is in comparison to fish, in which adaptations take a longer time, where the decrease in oxygen is a direct threat to life.

This vastly underestimates human capacity to destroy earth, which is also reason why lost of people do not believe in climate change to begin with.

If we go, all vertebrates go too. At least all cat and bigger sized.

Life will survive, but I would not call if "fine". Is it still fine if it's only microscopic life? When it stops being fine?

Dinosaurs died off. Earth is fine.

I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine.

If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.

> Earth is fine

But dinosaurs clearly are not.

> I think unless we start blowing up Earth with nuclear weapons on purpose, it will be fine.

What you think is not so important. What the worlds scientists specialising in that field think is important. If you feel that short of nuclear global destruction our impact is negligible then that contradicts just about all peer reviewed research.

> If humans are gone today, the CO2 levels will go back to normal pretty quickly with plenty of animals surviving all over the place.

That does not align with my understanding of the word 'fine', but seems to imply a rather apocalyptic ending for the human race, something that we might do better to avoid.

The point is, nobody really gives a damn about Earth itself, and why should we? It's a rock.

What we care about is us, humans. When we say "save the planet", what we mean is "save the ecosystem that's letting us live here, and enjoy that life". If we break things and die as a result, sure, something else will live. But we don't care about that something else, we care about us.

It's a stupid shorthand, but for some reason people appreciate the fake humility of saying it's about Earth, not about us.

> Earth will be fine

I'm so tired of hearing this empty phrase being used. Sure it was fun as a punchline but move along already. It's such a derailment of the discussion. It doesn't state what we mean by "earth" - is it the rock, the ecosystem, life itself? And it implies that the "earth" that is fine is the one that we actually should care about. I have no idea, because the way it's used is not really falsifiable and it's not really anything but a rhetorical trick.

Not sure why you're tired of it since I haven't heard this argument used much.

Regardless, when I say Earth, I mean the rock and likely ecosystems that currently exist and might develop on it. I think these things cannot be easily separated that's why Earth is used.

It’s used in nearly every climate change discussion. Its not particularly profound or thought provoking.

> and likely ecosystems that currently exist

Well if that's part of "Earth" then "Earth will be fine" is a lie.

I don't really care if the "Earth is fine" if it's uninhabitable for humans.

"At this rate most major cities will have to be abandoned in X years."

"Meh, dinosaurs have come and gone. The Earth will be fine."

"...To combat this, we need budget. Starting this year, your tax will increase by five percent."

"Murder! Fire! Revolution! How dare you!"

...happens all the time.

So what if we blow up Earth? Even if we would blow up the sun, the Milky Way will be fine, and so will all other galaxies around us.

No worries. ;P

Due to the Earth being a sphere, the arctic is much smaller in area than the tropical oceans, so I assume it could have a lot fewer fish.

All levels of the food chain need to be healthy for the bigger fish to survive, no oxygen means no bait fish. Ice levels will be irrelevant.

George Carlin is an expert on ecology? You're betting our future on the standup bit of a comedian?

You're funnier than Carlin. Congratulations.

Of course the Earth will be fine. The issue is about human civilization.

Are you serious in quoting a comic guy regarding such a big thing? I mean his goal is to entertain people and not to bring you an expert opinion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com