Humans Have Exceeded Six of the Nine Boundaries Keeping Earth Habitable | Hacker News Reader

Humans Have Exceeded Six of the Nine Boundaries Keeping Earth Habitable

smithsonianmag.com

> Crossing six of the nine boundaries isn’t a guarantee of disaster

Then are they really boundaries? How were those boundaries chosen? Sounds like they were chosen to be sensationalist rather than facts.

For example, the by far biggest problem in their graph is "Genetic - Bisophere Integrity". But that doesn't seem to be a major risk today, but looking at how out of bounds that value is you'd think that we are at the brink of extinction.

I don't think they're sensational. They appear to be based off "these levels/values are okay, these are uncomfortable and beyond this is bad". The graph shows that in a way. But I'm not a biologist and don't know what "Genetic - Bisophere Integrity" means.

So I studied a bit of ecology at a university level and biosphere integrity likely refers to retaining the ecological systems on the planet. For example, forests can influence the weather/climate. Deserts are growing in size, which is a terrifying prospect for farmers. When you strip off the topsoil of the meadow for farmland, you get the great dust bowl of the usa which caused mass migration and poverty. This isn’t to mean the basic “this is neat” of having so many well adapted creatures and plants of all unique shapes and sizes populating the earth in various places.

Thanks!

> The international group of scientists that conducted the research, which draws from 2,000 studies

Seems like they based it off of enough studies.

There is no such thing as “enough” studies, more data is always needed to support a claim. Which is all this is, a theoretical boundary decided using studies, not some intrinsic law of reality. That’s not even going into whether those are quality studies or not.

"Enough" depends on the purpose, right? Are there enough studies to credibly worry? Seems fair to say there is.

Are there enough studies to stop further study? Not a chance, as you say.

But the rewards are likely to be clarity of details, not reversals of concerns.

> Are there enough studies to credibly worry?

Maybe, if the studies are accurate. And considering the recent headlines calling into question the accuracy of studies, the reality of mass-produced studies, and the general faults of the peer-reviewed system, I’m willing to say it’s a good chance most of them aren’t.

Assuming, however, that they all are the most damning studies to ever grace mankind, I have no need to worry. I have only so much ability to alter the course we’ve been put on. As do most people. Until the day we eviscerate our corporate & political overlords and institute ecological safety nets, there is nothing we as a group can do to offset the damage that governments and corporations have done to the planet.

So if the studies are each compromised in various ways, carry on, no worries.

If the studies are ground truth, only to be reconfirmed again and again, carry on, no worries.

Well, you have a resilient plan!

We do seem to be waiting for a critical mass of pain to motivate a sustained and researched response. I am having trouble visualizing what could possibly do that. Enough pain to reach the rich, presumably.

Or not. I hear private jets have fabulous climate control.

The article states that the boundaries reflect the values that would keep that aspect stable within pre industrial levels.

Crossing a boundary means you are actively degrading that aspect and pushing it away from what would support human habitability. It is not an irretrievable or unrecoverable tipping point.

Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37500752 - Sept 2023 (173 comments)

On the chart, really surprised the 'Ocean Acidification' isn't higher.

Thought one of the big impacts of atmospheric CO2 was the impact on acidification.

Guess we have some room to grow on that scale.

> On the chart, really surprised the 'Ocean Acidification' isn't higher.

Agreed. Not sure how they're measuring that.

I also wonder what they're thinking about with freshwater, given recent articles about how heat rising means water less able to hold oxygen for freshwater life. Yes, even if the water is still there (which it may not be) and even if it's not polluted (and it's probably polluted with something) rising temperatures kill ecosystems.

Money and greed are close to impossible to overcome.

Maybe on a societal level. But not as an innate thing to humans. In fact this “greed is inevitable” line of thinking is one of the justifications for our current system.

Not sure what your thought process is there… if something is impossible to overcome on a societal level doesn’t that mean it’s innate to humans? We don’t quit being human because we’re in a large group. Group behavior is different from some individual’s behavior but it’s the same as other individual’s behavior.

Are you saying greed isn’t inevitable?

> Group behavior is different from some individual’s behavior but it’s the same as other individual’s behavior.

It isn't.

There are greedy and sociopathic people out there which will hoard power and money (greed) for themselves. To the point that we get such cataclysmic problems. And there has been an environment for such people ever since we were able to hoard foodstuff (grains) and other valuables.

The degree to which normal people are greedy is not comparable.

It is almost impossible to discuss, but because of this a peaceful solution may not be possible.

It's funny that so many people have a harder time visualizing the end of extractive capitalism than they do the end of the world as we know it. But once oligarchs start talking about fleeing to Mars, it's probably time to do some refactoring to balance inputs and outputs over the long term.

Oh no we're all going to die

You were warned.

Invasive species, need to introduce a natural predator into the ecosystem.

Rats-Snakes

Rats/Snakes-Mongoose

Birds-House Cats

Human-? ...

We have heard your concerns. Rest assured, a pack of wild crocodiles will be available for delivery if you wish. Although I must say it is weird to wish for natural predators to be released in one's own home.

Oh what’s that? Ah, you don’t want the natural predators in your home? You are just wishing that other people be eaten? It’s funny how everyone is always willing to sacrifice humans. As long as the humans being sacrificed are not they themselves.

We can take a larger view: competition is usually good and helps balance environments.

There doesn't need to be a bloodbath, only a reasonable threat that requires humans to behave in a way they wouldn't otherwise (another comment points out that greed is an awfully powerful motive, I'd argue fear would be a good control mechanism).

Earth becoming inhabitable doesn't seem to do it. God figures won't do it. Godzilla won't do it. Hope we lend on something that doesn't need human sacrifices first.

It's possible for there to be far fewer humans without needing to kill anyone. So depopulation can be an ethical strategy, except that you'd need to influence human reproduction.

Ironically, this attitude is also why we have the climate change issue in the first place.

And why mitigation is hard to get anyone to actually move forwards on in meaningful amounts.

I think you make a mistake if you assume that misanthropy is necessarily about all other humans except oneself.

Of course no one wants to be “dealt with” personally. And it in any case is a completely hypothetical position to take, except for those kooks that either believe in the coming AI Takeover or extraterrestrial invaders.

Some people celebrate that humans were able to “overcome nature” (modulo destroying it as a habitable place for ourselves), i.e. could live basically anywhere with the help of technology.[1] I think though that it might have been better for us (again, modulo The Earth) if we had become constrained by natural forces outside of ourselves (predators, other forces of nature) so that we couldn't do that. Because we are now—and have been for all the thousands of years of advanced human organization—the biggest threats to ourselves (wars, class society, subjugation). And although what we might call lower forms of life can be cruel—like a school(?) of orcas playing with their prey—nothing in nature can be as cruel to a human being with knowing intent as other human beings.

[1] And I reject those that claim that we “cheat” nature by using tools and technology (referring to e.g. people who claim that hunters “cheat” by using advanced weapons and tools); those things are a vital extension of us. Humans without technology would be like polar bears without ice sheets.

Well, I'd say covid did a commendable job, but honestly humans (and organisms in general) keep falling sick and dying. It takes a lot of things to go right for a nominal life, and one wrong thing to make it all wrong.

Human-Human

…CEOs

More generally: late stage capitalism.

And it’s total capture of every political system on Earth.

It just is the political system of every impactful society on Earth. With perhaps a few exceptional holdouts with either a lot of grit or nuclear weapons.

Which is where the real problem lies, not capitalism as everyone believes. Capitalism is supposed to be, and is claimed to be, subordinate to the democratic will of the people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com