Hacker News Reader

Comment by BurningFrog | Hacker News Reader

> This type of articles is the last thing we need right now

We always need the truth.

If your agenda can't handle the truth, it's maybe not that great to begin with.

It might make you feel good to write that, but there are much bigger lies being told. For example, tons of people believe that CO2 released by human activity does not cause global warming, and tons of people are promoting that idea. Arguing over just how much photosynthesis the Amazon is responsible for seems like a stupid article in light of that. Perhaps we can be selective over what we argue about and what we pay attention to. On the net, the claim "the Amazon is the Earth's lungs" being true or not is not really meaningful. We still shouldn't burn it down, and climate change is still bad and getting worse. Creating debate over trivialities is usually the aim of these types of pieces, and it's best not to allow ourselves to be manipulated so easily.

> 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.

arguments of the form "this is bad, but there are much worse incidences of {bad thing} we should be talking about instead" are whataboutism. you are arguing for an exception because you've run into an issue where you find yourself on the opposite side.

it's one thing to decide not to spend your mental energy on a small deceit/inaccuracy. you are actively trying to shut down the discussion.

No, I actually don't give a crap. This meta discussion aside, I actually know that my time on this planet is finite and as a result my attention is finite. Whether of not the Amazon is the Earth's lungs is a pedantic point. If it is or not, it doesn't change my stance on preserving it. So, while the article is true, I can safely ignore it because it is not meaningful. Not sure how much you know about agriculture and the Fischer-Tropsch process, but the Amazon soil is not particularly fertile and requires a bunch of nitrogen fertilizer which in turn is generally produced by fracking. Further, a bunch of that soy goes towards feeding cows. So burning the Amazon down is mostly pointless and contributes to furthering the global warming crisis in several important ways. It's important I don't lose sight getting engaged in a pedantic argument over trivial details. You see the same dynamic in gun control debates when someone re-polarizes a discussion by turning it towards a misidentification of a particular gun or whether "assault rifle" is a valid categorization of guns. Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation.

> Polarizing the discussion is the point, so I choose to ignore true points that are used to distract people from more meaningful conclusions. It's a very basic and easy technique to resist disinformation.

I'm honestly kind of shocked to see someone admit that this is their intention in so few words.

What is he/she admitting? Other than they feel there are numerous reasons to keep the Amazon, whether or not the lungs, is not enough of a negative to not

The reason it is bad is that you will lose control of it. Even if you have a handle on the truth now you will lose it if lying for the sake of narrative is expected and widespread and nuanced discussion is suppressed to avoid hurting you cause.

What you lose is ability to detect when it is time to change the cause (because it is fixed or something else even worse comes up or unintended consequences are uncovered).

It is akin to setting a course and then closing your eyes as to avoid any distractions on the way.

We shouldn’t burn the Amazon down, but the amount of effort we should expend in trying to prevent that is absolutely important, and articles like this help shape the assignment of resources.

Fighting climate change requires using limited resources (taxes, labor, public empathy, etc.), squandering them on useless projects (like the plastic straw ban) hurts the overall cause.

there are much bigger lies being told

This is always true, for everything. Scientific method must be applied consistently. The instant agenda enters into the picture and dictates what truths are lies because bigger lies exist, all is lost.

The problem seems to be that there's quite a bit of nuance in the article, but most people won't remember that if they even manage to read through it. They might however remember and pass on the clickbaity headline as it conveniently fits their climate change denial agenda.

Not the parent, but one reading of that comment is that the concern is not that the truth shouldn't be shared. I think being truthful is important, but the spin of the article minimizes the impact of climate change.

People already don't believe the truth and I struggle to think of a time in history when they did.

Truth is an abstract concept. We only ever get an interpretation, and this interpretation needs to be properly apprehensive of how information is disseminated and interpreted. Proper editorializing is far more important than you realize.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the contents of this article. It does not undermine the climate change (read: scientific) "agenda" in the slightest. However, considering the sheer amount of people who only read article titles and form rigid opinions nonetheless, this article's title specifically is potentially harmful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com