Hacker News Reader

Comment by Der_Einzige | Hacker News Reader

This is called the "baseline" problem among conservationists.

Why is it a problem? It's not like people are somehow special. We eat and shit like every other mammal but without us the water and land would not be full of synthetic chemicals and plastics. Seems very obvious to me that human industries change the baseline to a polluted state vs what it would have been without industrial activities. But even without industrial activity the historical record is very clear on the effect that human populations have on the surrounding flora and fauna.

Well, if you want to be optimistic, I think we got coal from lignin/wood being uneatable for hundreds of millions of years (I think).

So wood would stack up, not rot, get covered by dirt and turned into coal due to physical processes, not biological ones.

So coal deposits of the existing magnitudes couldn't be created now.

I am very optimistic. I don't remember where I read it but whatever remains after the current industrial civilization will not have access to the energy resources necessary for reindustrialization. Might have been Derrick Jensen but I can't remember which book exactly.

I have no idea what book might have first explored this idea, but it's a very common theme online whenever this type of discussion comes up: someone will inevitably point out that any post-human-extinction civilization that might evolve on Earth won't have such easy access to energy as we've had.

It's obvious once you think about what enables our current industrial activity: millions of years of biological growth and sedimentation. But it's all equivalent to solar radiation that was incident on the planet over millions of years which we have burned up in less than a few hundred. Once you understand this basic reality the logical conclusion is very clear and obvious: the current rate of consumption is unsustainable. The obvious next question is what can be done about it but no one wants to think about it so it never gets addressed. Presumably someone higher up the political and economic hierarchy is thinking about it and they will manage things as best as possible but based on how people reacted to COVID lockdowns I'm not sure they know what they're doing.

I think you are missing the point. The "problem" is the question of what you baseline you want humans to restore it to and then actively maintain.

Many people want to restore nature, but the natural state is usually one of flux which is deeply unsatisfying to many advocates of it's restoration.

It is an interesting question.

Nature is much too complex to fit into people's anthropocentric perspective. Either we dial back the production of industrial poisons or the natural world will continue withering from our consumption of natural resources. The fundamental problem is that industrial activity is unsustainable but it's neither politically nor economically expedient to actually address the root causes of why that's the case.

Sure, but that a complete tangent from the problem/challenge the parent post was talking about and you were attempting to critique.

Your tangent does not negate the point, as it has practical applications for public policy and managing interest groups.

One of my favorite examples to illustrate the challenge is restoration efforts around the Salton Sea. The lake is drying, causing dust, and there is a major environmental movement to restore it. The challenge comes in that the entire lake was created by accident in 1905, so the benchmark for restoration is critical. Restoring it to the dry lakebed of 1904 would not help with fish life and dust reduction. Dial the clock back to 1700, and it was a enormous lake again, but we would have to reroute the entire Colorado River from the current path along the Arizona boarder, because the Colorado river has shifted 200 miles east 300 years ago.

In any event, good luck with whatever plans you think will restore natural balance. I've made my points as clear as possible.

troll alert

yep, or someone engaging with enough bad faith that the distinction makes no difference. I usually give folks the benefit of the doubt once and then move on.

All my responses are always of utmost sincerity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com