Hacker News Reader

Comment by ajkjk | Hacker News Reader

Who cares? if everyone dies and you say "well it always changes" the answer is still "...and we could have done something about it and we didn't do enough."

It has no bearing if it changed in the past if we can do something about it not killing most (non-rich) people in the future.

Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now. So if your goal is "definitely let's make sure we don't handle this well", then at least, if you're right, you can justify that. Pretty pointless, though, unless your goal is destruction.

View on HN

That wasn't their point at all.

The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future.

Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different?

> The question always is if we can even do something about the climate now or if we should spend the energy and resources into preparing for a potentially inevitable future.

It's usually easier to stop doing something than to deal with the consequences of doing something.

> Humans have always been champions of handling change. Why should this be different?

Humans have never faced this kind of change. It will be different because it's not just a different temperatures, it's the collapse of the ecosystem which we rely on for food.

How do you know that?

How do I know what? The earlier, the latter, both?

That humans never faced this before and it's collapse of whole ecosystem.

> That humans never faced this before

Can you point to any time during the existence of our species with a similar kind of change?

> and it's collapse of whole ecosystem.

That's mostly based on scientific studies, existing examples of rapid changes in ecosystems, and previous mass extinction events. Do you have any evidence counter to this idea?

That's not evidence for your worlds or answer for my question.

It is an answer, even if you don't like it.

You didn't ask for "evidence for my worlds".

You should have background for your worlds. If you claim something, it doesn't mean that it is a fact until other proves the opposite.

I do! I even told you the background. You just don't like it.

Be more specific. Give me a source of idea that you claim.

All evidence points to it not being inevitable on the timescales it is happening on. On some timescale, obviously the planet melts from the sun. Doesn't mean we want it to melt soon.

> Who cares? if everyone dies and you say "well it always changes" the answer is still "...and we could have done something about it and we didn't do enough."

I don't take a nihlist approach. I take a realistic approach. The changes will occur. What will we do about it? Go into a delusion that we can stop the change or take steps to prepare?

> Well it was one bearing if it was like this in the past: it gives people a convenient argument for dismissing it now

I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying it IS HAPPENING & nothing we do will stop it. So what are we going to do? Sacrifice to the gods to stop the inevitable? Good luck with that...

I would prefer to mitigate these changes by hardening our infrastructure, utilize tech & social systems to improve quality of life, and address pollution like the toxic sludge byproduct to mine materials for your "renewable" equipment.

No, you argued that it has happened before, which does not imply that the fact that it is happening now is not anthropogenic this time -- which it obviously is.

If you can do work now to make "the planet getting very hot and messed up everyone's lives" take thousands of extra years, during which time it is more livable, why would you not? Obviously you would balance this against other economic and policy concerns, which everyone is, and it comes out way ahead because warming is very bad for everyone.

"It has happened in the past, therefore turn your brain off and tell everyone else to stop thinking also." is not a "realistic" approach, it's a delusional one. It doesn't involve a realistic model of the present or the future. It's profoundly unconcerned with any sort of causal model of reality that makes predictions about the future and therefore analyzes what we ought to do based on their expected outcomes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com