Even if we manage to tackle the climate crisis, I wonder how we will address the accompanying ecological collapse that seems to be rapidly accelerating.
https://i0.wp.com/mackaycartoons.net/wp-content/uploads/2020...
It makes me sad to think that 50-100 years from now most of the species we know and many more we don't will be extinct.
The only things left alive will be what we need to survive and whatever manages to carve a niche out of the blasted landscapes we leave in our wake.
Give it a shot if you care. Education isn't the problem, it's the will to sacrifice our comfort for a better world.
We are much better at consumption than nature is at adaptation.
https://news.mongabay.com/2020/06/less-than-a-thousand-remai...
Burden of proof is on you if you want to make a claim like that.
That sounds woefully inadequate information for something as complex as what this model is trying predict.
That's like predicting the weather from only a handful of temperature sensors, or doing patient studies with N=4.
A mass die offs of coral, which is currently happening, will decimate ocean ecosystems and have a cascading effect on the rest of the world.
People have been saying this for decades, its not new news. Its just inconvenient and impacts shareholders.
We have been accurately modeling climate change for over 50 years now.
Also, epidemiologist have been predicting a coronavirus outbreak specifically for about 10 years, and a larger global pandemic for about 100.
You can choose to ignore science if you want, but that doesn't mean people havent been warning us.
I predict the sun will run out of steam and we are all gonna die. Furthermore, some volcanos will erupt too.
And we have not been 'accurately predicting the climate for 50 years' : about 50 years ago, there were worries about a new ice age.
I feel recently it's been a long time since I came across examples of where nature is increased or restored. Every time it's about nature disappearing.
Bad news is reported far more often than good.
There are signs of the planet greening as a result of higher CO2, for instance.
That doesn't diminish the potential damage, but it's not all bad.
Its the rate of change, not the change itself that causes mass extinctions.
Which just goes to show that deadly radiation is better for the environment than the presence of humans.
Current trends show major ecological collapse within our lifetimes.
David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet (2020)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11989890/
But it doesn't mean it won't happen without a wake-up call. The answer is simple, just stop destroying what has caused unprecedented equilibrium in temperatures during the latest rise of civilization in the past 10k years.
I admire his drive, but I also believe it is futile.
Humankind has done nothing but expand and devour over its short history on this planet, nothing that we have done makes me think this trend will stop.
Saying humankind has done "nothing" is not only mistaken, but makes for poor conversation. Perhaps more people should take a page from Attenborough.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/dec/17/for-the-first-...
The only real hope the worlds ecosystems have is drastic and sudden reduction in human population, which won't be pleasant for anyone.
This was proved by the resurgence of nature in the areas surrounding Chernobyl. I've been a part of a coral conservation project in SEAsia for the last 15 years, and we have seen more recovery over the last year due to tourists being gone than ever before.
Unfortunately the boat captains who were ferrying snorkelers before have gone back to fishing the reefs, so that change was short lived. We are also beginning to see signs of a major bleaching event.
The long term impacts of COVID are going to see a relaxation of ecological protections worldwide, which I imagine will have a similar effect.
For example, regenerate forests using Miyawaki's method: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akira_Miyawaki#Method_and_cond...
> The Miyawaki method of reconstitution of "indigenous forests by indigenous trees" produces a rich, dense and efficient protective pioneer forest in 20 to 30 years ... this method, if properly applied, quickly produces a multi-layered forest and according to him, a soil with a microbial and acari composition quickly approaching that of a normal primary forest.
And regenerative ecologically-harmonious agriculture, e.g.: "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A
Reversing desertification: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_greening
Our future Garden Earth will need a lot of labor, investment.
I recently observed a couple dozen volunteers working on restoring some local woods (in a park). Removing rubbish, culling invasive species, restoring top soil, planting saplings, etc.
It was real work. I couldn't believe how small the targeted area was. Less than an acre.
Doing restoration, biomediation at scale would give a lot of people a lot of jobs. At this point in my life, I'd definitely do it for minimum wage and health insurance. My neighbor "retired" a few years ago, now does landscaping. He claims he's never been happier, more fit. He certainly looks it.
There was an article that went by here on HN not long ago that claimed that this is the year that humans and their livestock outweigh all other (wild) biomass. In other words, I think Garden Earth is today, eh?
And yeah, I agree with you that it's going to take a lot of work. Done well, regenerative agriculture is profitable, so that's great.
On a personal level, online calculators tell me I've reduced my footprint about 90 percent. More than the material change, I didn't expect it would improve my life so much -- saving money, time, increasing connection to family and control over my career, plus being invited to communities like food deserts who can benefit most from such transitions. I would bet most Americans could reduce about 70 or 80 percent with simple improvements they wish they did earlier. Most Silicon Valley types maybe 90 percent before any difficult decisions.
My podcast and nonprofit's missions are to help people realize they'll like the change. Everyone presents sustainability as a burden, chore, or sacrifice. In practice, it's the opposite, but no one tries so haven't experienced it. They think not flying means not working or seeing their family.
We're creating systemic change by leading well-known people to change, publicly so listeners have role models. Community influences people more than facts and figures, so we're focusing on people in everyone's communities.
Many opportunities for rewarding change.
This Sustainable Life: https://joshuaspodek.com/podcast
Here's a list of popular guests based on downloads: https://joshuaspodek.com/leadership-and-the-environment-top-... though I recommend the solo episodes of my reflections without guests, starting here: https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/solo-episodes-volume-15.
My three TEDx talks: https://joshuaspodek.com/tedx
My two cents...
Due to this pandemic, I'm finally eating the way I've always intended to. Beans, legumes, brown rices, chilis, stews, novel flours, baking.
I've dropped 30lbs, now close to my ideal weight. I'm also eating non-stop, so it's not due calorie restriction.
To maximize social distancing, and maybe reduce risk of food shortages, I've been buying bulk as much as possible.
Another unexpected benefit is my food waste is now super low.
Some times I think that humanity is just a disease itself. Despite overwhelming evidence of our detrimental effects to this planet, we continue to plunge all of it's precious resources and while sitting on a pile of ashes. We ponder at the question of "why?"
I don't personally worry about the collapse of the ecosystem as some major long term issue. Major extinction events have occurred in the past, and it portends a massive explosion of diversity as life adapts to the new ecosystem. In a few million years our AI ancestors will tend an amazing garden of native, artificial and synthetic hybrid life.
And if we don't make it... multicellular life will continue to flourish and evolve.
What leads you to believe this? I often see similar sentiments on this website. I don't understand it. Maybe I'm missing something.
High technology is fragile. As far as I can tell, it's nowhere close to self-sufficient. It's the pinnacle of a massive edifice whose foundation is biology: in particular non-human life. Kick that out and the whole thing collapses.
> And if we don't make it... multicellular life will continue to flourish and evolve.
This does seem reasonably likely. Life is resilient. Human life and human engineering, not so much.
I'm not sure if you grasp the concept of extinction: the permanent removal of species from the ecosystem. Mass extinctions don't "portend a massive explosion of diversity" they literally signal the end of diversity. Ecosystems take millions of years to recover as there are few or no species left that fill prior ecological niches to provide ecosystem services. Biodiversity is not the result of extinction, it's what happens between extinction events as millions upon millions of mutations build up viable species.
It's like cutting down all the trees in the forest and declaring "but in the long run, this will be good for the forest! Think of all the trees that will eventually grow here!"
"More than 40% of insect species are declining and a third are endangered"
"The analysis, published in the journal Biological Conservation, says intensive agriculture is the main driver of the declines, particularly the heavy use of pesticides."