Hacker News Reader

Comment by defterGoose | Hacker News Reader

Please don't source your worldview from a comedian. The snark can be temporarily comforting, but just remember that it's a distraction. Carlin is deeply wrong about the effect we can have on the biosphere. You simply can't simplify the problem without losing all meaningful nuance.

View on HN

> Carlin is deeply wrong about the effect we can have on the biosphere

> Don't believe me about climate change scaremongering

You both missed the point of this bit. If the planet warms 5C and we are all baked to a crisp, we had an effect on the biosphere AND climate change was correct. Carlin's point is that in a astronomical, deep-time sense, it's not the "PLANET" that's in trouble, it's the human race.

There may have been life on Mars, which may have died due to ignorant people like HashingtheCode, but Mars is still there. Mars is fine. The Martians on the other hand...

Fair enough. But did you have a read of the failed climate predictions over the past 50 years? It's hilarious.

I'm not sure that Carlin is saying what you think he is saying. He's not saying there won't be climate change.

He's just saying that climate change is going to destroy humanity. It won't destroy the planet, per se.

It's pretty clear what he is saying; which is that humanity will have little if no impact on the Earth.

He is not talking about climate change and the people panicking about possible 25m sea level increase.

Read the full transcript;

https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2019/08/22/george-carlin-savin...

> It's pretty clear what he is saying; which is that humanity will have little if no impact on the Earth.

> He is not talking about climate change and the people panicking about possible 25m sea level increase.

> Read the full transcript;

> https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2019/08/22/george-carlin-savin...

"The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself cause that’s what it does."

Pretty sure he's stating that humans are a destructive force to the Earth and ourselves, but that only we will cease to exist because of it.

He's saying humans are insignificant in terms of the lifespan of the planet and all the creatures that came before us. He is saying the Earth doesn't care for a bit of plastic we have created as it will be incorporated into the Earth. He is saying that the Earth has faced far greater threats than this 2 legged ape and will be here long after we are cleansed from it. He is saying that our arrogant attempts to "save the planet" are ridiculous.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

The attempts are not to save the planet, but to reduce our impact to ensure we don’t go extinct and don’t significantly damage the environment. Your use of adjective like “arrogant” just displays your bias and willingness to use the worst possible interpretation of other people’s words. That’s not a way to come to understanding, quite the opposite.

Sounds like you are under the illusion that human beings are a species worth saving, but if you look at the destruction we have caused over the past 100k years, you can make an argument for the opposite, especially in the past 200 years since the industrial revolution.

Human will not change. We will cause destruction no matter where we go, no matter the planet or galaxy, we will destroy it and move on. Even with all our technological advances, we are causing more destruction than ever.

Humans unsettle the balance of nature, we are the problem.

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus."

He's certainly obfuscating his personal beliefs with comedy, but sure. The thing is, there really isn't a meaningful difference between the destruction of the human race and the destruction of the natural world. That is to say, the reversion of the earth from a vibrant biosphere to an uninhabitable protoplasmic rock isn't the same thing as humanity disappearing in an instant. The problem with Carlin's logic is that sans humans, there isn't even anyone/anything left to even make the value judgement about whether Earth is an outstanding planet; this in conjunction with the fact that we're not facing an isolated disappearance of our species and leaving everything else constant. The way we're going, all the cute animals are coming with us.

Which ones?

From papers, please, no from media

In the newspaper articles they make references to the research. For Example in the first paper from 1975 it is Paul R Erlich who is the researcher.

If you want, you can track down the paper. It may be difficult though.

Edit: In 1968, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich wrote a well-publicized book entitled The Population Bomb . Ehrlich predicted widespread famine and disaster unless population growth was reduced to zero in America and throughout the world by compulsory methods if necessary.

Edit: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract

Reply on news.ycombinator.com