Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here
news.stanford.edu
news.stanford.edu
In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” and “[our children] will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960’s are dead.”
"""On the first Earth Day in 1970, he warned that "[i]n ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."[5] In a 1971 speech, he predicted that: "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people." "If I were a gambler" Professor Ehrlich concluded before boarding his plane, " I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000."[5] When this scenario did not come to pass, he responded that "When you predict the future, you get things wrong. How wrong is another question. I would have lost if I had had taken the bet. However, if you look closely at England, what can I tell you? They're having all kinds of problems, just like everybody else."""
That last bit is all he should have said: that people and places will be having problems, just like everyone else, just like has always been the case, just like always will be.
Why are people still paying attention to anything he says?
"...understand something...salary...depends on it...", you know how it goes.
When I see the word economic justice in a piece about extinction, it is a key to me that the author may be more concerned with agendas over facts.
That's 7.6m per year, about 115m in the 21st century.
Nearly one in five children under the age of five dies from diarrhea related illnesses. And that's easilly and cheaply treated (50 US cents of oral rehydration salts).
Yes, people suffer from hunger. That's been a problem for all of human history. Hopefully someday it will be "solved," but that's not likely to happen as long as some people are evil and want to control other people. If we can't stop shooting each other and beheading each other and blowing up each other, what makes us think we can stop each other from starving?
"Well, some people starved. But he was right about people starving."
Is there any time in history in which no one in the world suffered from hunger?
Causes of mass hunger have changed. Population growth and increased life expectancy have been the problems. Add to this the mess created by our fellow humans by deforestation. Famines far more devastating and serious happen to day, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives.
Visit countries like India, countries in Africa and you can see for yourself what is happening there. To continue our way of life we are forced to under take big irrigations projects.
But the point in the article is no effect is without a cause, and there are interdependent causes. And sometimes effects work like a chain reaction. Like for example- bees going extinct, you could say its just one species. But the collateral damage from their extinction can wreak havoc on so many other things in an ecosystem.
Are those really the problems? That population growth and life expectancy has also helped result in increased crop yields through more workers and better technology. Since there is no global food shortage, I don't think those are the problems.
> Add to this the mess created by our fellow humans by deforestation.
In some places, forests are thicker than they were centuries ago. Some fellow humans are putting a lot of effort into reforestation. Sounds like a political/social/economic problem, not a "humans causing a mess" problem (the difference being that the latter sounds like it blames all humans, while not all humans are like that).
> Visit countries like India, countries in Africa and you can see for yourself what is happening there. To continue our way of life we are forced to under take big irrigations projects.
This is really a fascinating issue, why some parts of the world have developed and produce a surplus, while others have not and do not. Is the problem overpopulation in these places, or is the problem that they have not developed technologically and socially at the same rate they have increased in population?
> But the point in the article is no effect is without a cause, and there are interdependent causes.
I guess that's one point in the article. But when you consider the author's past, I think a strong point--implied, at least--is that we are killing the planet and need to reduce the population. And that's what I disagree with.
Its really not a simple situation the parameters involved might even be exponential in size.
>>is that we are killing the planet and need to reduce the population. And that's what I disagree with.
No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible for it. India indeed experiences a phase where we realize how unmanageable things can get when population increases.
Greater Tokyo is home to about 37 million people. California's population is about 39 million people and Canada's population is about 35 million people.
This suggests that the Earth could easily sustain 7 billion human beings, and then some. There is certainly enough land available. But consider some the problems we are facing today - including but not limited to - unequal distribution of resources (and a finite supply of these resources), people starving to death (at a rate of 21,000 people each day according to a poster in this thread) despite producing enough food to feed everyone on the planet and many (most?) people on Earth still living in abject poverty.
Theoretically, after radically reorganizing the economy and radically reducing consumption in the wealthy nations, housing, feeding and clothing 7 billion people is certainly possible, if not very probable. But Earth's 7 billion people living a consumer capitalist lifestyle is, unless I am missing something, simply not physically possible. It's often said that for everyone on Earth to live like Americans and Western Europeans we would need an additional three planet Earth's worth of resources. I have no idea how accurate this is but as a species we cling to our consumer lifestyles knowing that it's responsible for many deaths and much misery in many parts of the world. If the consequences of global warming are as dire as many scientists claim, we'd rather jeopardize our species' very existence on this planet before seriously reducing our consumption levels.
Where was I going with this again? Overpopulation, right. It seems to me humans will choose instant gratification no matter what the consequences are. If it's not happening to me, right now, it's not happening. Nobody starving around here. The weather's nice too and the stores are well stocked. Oh, and the Internet, I have that too. In other words we are behaving like junkies. Yeah I could try quitting and living a productive lifestyle but you know I have enough dope stashed away and money to buy more when that runs out..and getting dope sick really, really sucks. I'm not a masochist dude and frankly I can afford to get high and not think about tomorrow or next week or whatever. I'll deal with that shit when and if I have to.
What blows me away is that China's small but growing middle class already includes more people than the entire population of the United States. I wonder where China sees itself in 15, 20, 30, 100 years? Unlike Western cultures, Chinese culture takes a long view and is much more prepared to sacrifice short-term gain or gratification for long-term gain. Or at least that was the common perception. From where I'm sitting it looks like humanity is on the brink of self-destruction unless something compels us to radically alter our preferred lifestyle or, even less likely, technology steps in to save the day. Really, I have no idea how things will actually play out. But humans suddenly embracing selfless altruism and self-sacrifice...nah, I just can't see it happening.
Well, that was 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Gave me a lot to think about though. Why am I talking to myself again? -
Your talking about China and their long-term vs. short-term view is interesting. I wonder if that is actually part of the problem. Saying that something is for "the greater good" or "the long-term good" can be used to justify both horrific atrocities and gradual injustices. Combined with an evil government wanting to maintain the status quo and continue exploiting its people, it seems like a recipe for disaster--and that seems to be the case.
Related to that, I think history demonstrates that centralized planning and control doesn't work (outside of the military). We humans think we can understand how enormous, complex, interrelated, global systems work, and that we can predict the future--but we can't. We can only predict the weather a few days ahead, and that far from perfectly. We certainly can't predict our own behavior.
In contrast, what does work--as far as creating prosperity--is decentralization and self-determination. One reason, I think, is that it is easier to make plans and predictions on a smaller scale. Another is that self-determination helps motivate people, leading to entrepreneurship, research, etc. But centralized planning and control has the opposite effect, demotivating people--another effect that UBI would have. That then requires bread and circuses--something we have in spades today with electronic media.
I would respectfully caution you against vilifying capitalist, consumer nations and populaces. It does seem true that less-developed nations are exploited through cheaper labor and fewer regulations, but on the other hand, if all of those jobs were pulled back domestically, how would that affect the third-world? I don't think anyone knows whether that would actually result in an improvement in their living conditions--although it would surely reduce the unemployment rate in the first-world ones.
But my point is that the way you talk about consumers being junkies implies that innocent people who are simply living normal lives in their respective places are responsible for poverty and hunger around the world. The truth is that those nations were in poverty and hunger hundreds of years ago, before these consumer, capitalist nations became prosperous. And prosperous, first-world nations do tremendous charity work, feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and helping the poor in undeveloped nations.
It just sounds like a guilt trip against prosperous nations. And while there are some overly wealthy people in control of giant corporations who exploit people all over the world, the average person living in a first-world country is not causing hunger and poverty around the world. In fact, they often do a lot to help it.
But this "capitalism is evil and consumers are guilty" narrative is popular now. The truth is that people have the capacity for evil, and power tends to corrupt. Capitalism at least compartmentalizes the potential for evil, compared to centralized forms of government and economy like communism. Although globalization and technology are having their own effects on it. Nothing is stable--the system is in constant flux. That's another reason we can't really understand it, and another reason to compartmentalize.
As for us being on the brink of self-destruction--I honestly don't understand that idea. As technology develops, our ability to live efficiently and overcome a wider range of problems increases. Nuclear annihilation seems less likely than before.
Some people are still living in hunger and poverty. That has always been the case. It always will be. Why? Because evil exists. Because there will always be evil governments who oppress and exploit their people.
That does not mean that the entire human race is going to cease to exist. That's just ridiculous. That's absurd, sky-falling propaganda and fearmongering.
What you should be asking yourself is, why are some people pushing that FUD? The answer is simple: as I said, evil exists, people want to control and exploit others, and the cheapest way to do that is to convince people that they are responsible for killing us all, and therefore need to submit to their new overlords who will avert the crisis of global cooling/global warming/climate change/mass extinction/economic collapse/economic injustice/etc. Propaganda is cheaper than weapons, so convincing people to willingly submit is more cost-effective than forcing them to.
Don't fall for it. Don't fall into their trap.
Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.
> To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The long list of impacts includes: Land clearing for farming, logging and settlement
All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace.
Notice:
> a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity
Could the anti-human, pro-population control, pro-communism spin be any more transparent?
I guess they're safe, since they're the intellectuals pulling the strings. After all, if the "population" of "researchers" were controlled, who would be around to tell everyone else how to survive? It's everyone else, consuming and inequitizing, that is causing the problems and needs to be reduced and reequitized and controlled.
Edit: Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes. Not big surprise. It's not necessary to promote the right side of the spectrum to get in trouble, just criticize the left side.
Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous."
> All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace.
It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so.
> Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes
I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).
Sure it's a mix, but it seems predominantly left to me. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to prove it either way.
How are my statements about extinction objectively wrong?
> Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous."
No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point. It would be closer to, "We have no idea whether that asteroid is going to come anywhere near us, and even if it were, it's highly unlikely we could do anything to stop it. However, devoting enough resources to mount a significant attempt to stop it would definitely harm people. So we shouldn't start doing that until it's much clearer that 1) it's going to hit us, and 2) we could stop it."
> It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so.
I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. At smaller scales, people are unwilling to admit certain possibilities, because doing so would harm their careers--they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil. On a larger scale, certain people want to control other people for their own gain, both in power and fortune. That is also evil.
And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those in power to preserve and increase their power. CC was promoted as such a policy vehicle back in the 70s, and it's still being used for it today. Very little of the "science" is about actual facts--most of it is about politics.
This undermines the search for the truth. But people who don't recognize this accept the "data" at face value. Then they advocate trying to stop climate change. But doing that would line the pockets of certain powerful, wealthy people and corporations. And it would keep certain parties and nations in positions of weakness. This is why it is ultimately about evil. If all that was being done was "gathering data," that would be fine.
Personally, I think opinions that match ideologies you're really opposed to probably leave a bigger impression than the ones you agree with. It's easy to come to the conclusion that you're in the minority when you're really not. I believe there are a lot of social conservatives on HN, but the same people are not necessarily technologically or scientifically conservative. This doesn't fall cleanly into left and right by US standards, but I think it's a reasonable model of HN majority predisposition.
> No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point.
I thought I was taking it as literally as possible, and after reading the response I still believe I understood the core intent correctly. When you said "But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.", I got the impression that you're asserting the only reason why we correlate extinctions with human activity is because we want to blame humans.
However, what's actually going on is more a collection of thousands of observations about these events, made on a case by case basis. For example, these are observations about human settlements impacting wildlife. In another area, they might be data about the results of us restructuring local flora and fauna. Or they might be analytical results pointing to correlations between human-induced contamination of water bodies and changes in the biome that characteristically follow it. It's literally a mass of thousands of data points.
> I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. [...] they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil.
You did originally use the word evil in an entirely different context, which I was responding to.
> And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those in power to preserve and increase their power.
A lot of groups are proclaiming that the opposing organizations have money and power on their side. The environmental protection movement makes the same assertion, only about letting industry and agriculture go unchecked.
But let's move away from political formulas now. The reality of the fact is that it actually matters very little whether and how often the Anthropocene is publicly declared. We're going to continue on the path we're already on. There will be some continued wide-scale destruction, and a lot of it will not be happening in western countries. But we'll also ramp up initiatives to try and lessen our environmental impact, both to preserve biodiversity for its own sake, but also to improve our own quality of life.
You say that you believe any such efforts will harm people, but to be honest I find that line of reasoning difficult to follow, especially considering the fact that we're mortally dependent on the integrity of our biosphere and that the measures we're putting in place are generally very modest.
None of this will change because some scientists make sensationalistic claims in the media. The article we're talking about is a total yawner, to be honest. Most scientific people already know we're witnessing a huge extinction event, no matter how we actually label it. Talking about that label is the least interesting thing we can do with the observations we made.
That's a good point.
> I believe there are a lot of social conservatives on HN, but the same people are not necessarily technologically or scientifically conservative. This doesn't fall cleanly into left and right by US standards, but I think it's a reasonable model of HN majority predisposition.
I'm not sure what you mean by socially conservative vs. scientifically and technologically.
> Well, I thought I was taking it as literally as possible. When you said "But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.", I got the impression that you're asserting the only reason why we correlate extinctions with human activity is because we want to blame humans.
I think there are some people who definitely do want to blame humans, for different reasons. At the conspiratorial end of the spectrum, there's population control purposes (cf. blumkvist's comments about increasing automation). At the more personal end of the spectrum, there are things like those whose careers are already invested into declaring that humans are at fault.
So when you say "we," I think you're glossing over a significant issue, that of different groups with different motivations.
> However, what's actually going on is more a collection of thousands of observations about these events, made on a case by case basis. For example, these are observations about human settlements impacting wildlife. In another area, they might be data about the results of us restructuring local flora and fauna. Or they might be analytical results pointing to correlations between human-induced contamination of water bodies and changes in the biome that characteristically follow it. It's literally a mass of thousands of data points.
Sure, no doubt some of these researchers have compiled massive amounts of data. But even if you take their historical data at face value, it does not necessarily follow that these small-scale human impacts on the environment will cause mass extinctions. The gulf between the two is enormous.
> A lot of groups are proclaiming that the opposing organizations have money and power on their side. The environmental protection movement makes the same assertion, only about letting industry and agriculture go unchecked.
Certainly, there are huge amounts of money being spent lobbying on both sides of the issue. It's not as if one side or the other is altruistic. In fact, I think that's the point that needs to be emphasized, perhaps above all else: these are less scientific issues than social and political ones. Science is being used as a vehicle to push certain agendas. It's fine to consider the science and the potential ramifications, but we absolutely must continue examining the people and agendas that are pushing certain conclusions. If we don't, we will have the wool pulled over our eyes, and possibly lead off a cliff.
> You say that you believe any such efforts will harm people, but to be honest I find that line of reasoning difficult to follow, especially considering the fact that we're mortally dependent on the integrity of our biosphere and that the measures we're putting in place are generally very modest.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should go around killing and burning and polluting and destroying willy-nilly. I think we should be good stewards of the planet and all of its resources, both living and non-living.
But I don't think we should put "biodiversity" above human life. The policies that are often proposed would result in real harm to real people right now. And the people pushing them either don't value human life, or they value their own (and their own wealth/power) above everyone else's. And that's dangerous.
Deleted comment
I assume you've never studied statistics? Or shouldn't you know that correlation does not equal causation? See, I can make unfounded assumptions too.
> Or maybe you wouldn’t care if humans go extinct?
You are full of assumptions, aren't you?
It's just amazing how people think we are so powerful and can affect nature to such an extent. But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. But if the elephant seems to be tripping and there's an ant near his foot, it must be the ant's fault...
I think this is the wrong way to look at this. It's not about "are we powerful enough" or "are we big enough" it's not about size or power.
Even very small insignificant things can and do have quite a large impact. It's more about impacting a system in a way it's ill equipped to compensate for.
One of the more recent theories of the cause of the worst extinction level event is a particular methane producing microbe. Something far less powerful than a human is, yet a potential cause of an extinction level event that dwarfed the one that killed off the dinosaurs.
Regarding the "farting bacteria" theory (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist), hey, who knows, maybe that happened. But it's surely a stretch to say that it probably did. And even if it did, look at the incredible biodiversity that came to exist afterward! Why are we (or some people) so worried?
"Sure, most humans will die, but just imagine how great all the biodiversity will be after a few million years! Won't that be great!" Maybe some crazy Peta people would think that, but otherwise I think biodiversity is hardly a compelling argument for people that starve as a result of any changes to the planet.
Obviously life would survive just about damn near anything, and has in the past, but at what cost, and in what form?
The questions aren't "are humans capable of damaging the earth to the point that threatens humans ability to survive on earth" because that's definitely a yes. It's more of a question of whether we are already or not. If we purposely wanted to destroy the earth we could, for example global thermonuclear war, engineered plagues, etc. We could absolutely make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, no question there. So the whole "are we big enough" simply doesn't make sense.
My entire point was that the line of reasoning that we're not big enough to impact the planet is nonsense since not only do smaller things than us impact the planet, but there's indisputable methods we are capable of rendering the planet uninhabitable.
I expect you were asked about your knowledge of biology (although it could have been pretty much any other science) because small things have large effects all the time and even a basic knowledge of any of those fields would provide you with plenty of examples of small things having large effects. It's quite bizarre to see somebody accusing others of logical fallacies while making such a basic logical error.
It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be.
There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere.
>What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion.
Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).
I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth again.
The point is that mass extinctions have happened multiple times without any human intervention.
I call troll.
Cod stocks collapsed because of over fishing. They recovered when we stopped fishing.
Buffalo went near extinct when we killed most of them.
The passenger pigeon went extinct when we killed all of them.
Dodos went extinct because we killed all of them.
These are all clear and direct examples.
What you're doing is dishonest - "show me something unclear and with complex causes as an example of human destruction, and then when you do I'll quibble with the small areas of doubt provided in your example even though most of science agree the cause was human".
That is a far cry from causing mass extinction on a global scale.
We have also protected and repopulated some nearly extinct species.
Equating the two--that's dishonest at worst, and a difference in judgment at best. Like I said, it's a question of judgment.
What is definitely dishonest is to claim that all sea life will die in ten years, leaving the shores covered with dead fish; or claim that the entire UK will starve to death; and then, when proven wrong by reality, say, "Well, they're having problems, aren't they? See? I wasn't really wrong."
And with such a track record, it seems ridiculous for anyone to believe him when he claims we are now causing mass extinctions on a global scale. How can you take him seriously?
Lots of things happened within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to show causation. To be clear, I believe humans have caused this problem, but how is it even possible to claim scientific knowledge of it? Where is your control experiment?
But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational.
We've destroyed a lot of natural habitats, and we know that these habitats contain a great deal of biodiversity. We just don't know what would have happened if we hadn't destroyed those habitats. My guess is that we wouldn't be facing a mass extinction event, but there's no way to check.
Even if there was only a 10% chance humans were responsible, I would still rather play it safe than ignore the issue.
And I certainly take issue with your vegetarian example. What other people eat is none of your business. It sounds almost funny, but that would be food fascism--is there any other word for it? Do you really want some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk writing memos telling you what you are and are not allowed to eat? How can you think that's a good idea? The more governments try to control people, the more people are harmed. Doesn't history make this obvious? Why do people seem to think, "Yeah, but we can get it right This Time"?
edit: Never mind, I read your answer up above. Well, anyway, a judgment call.
It sounds like a really interesting idea for a computer game: you're the president of the world, and an asteroid may or may not be going to hit the planet in so many years. Can you bring the planet's resources to bear in time to prevent it? Can you develop the technology and send the mission without bankrupting society and causing mass unrest? Can you delay that preparation and develop better technology to figure out if the asteroid will really hit?
Or do you play the villain, letting the asteroid hit, but building fallout shelters to survive with your friends while everyone else perishes? Can you do that without the populace catching on? Can you get it done in time? Can you outlast the "asteroid winter"?
Give me an example of something that is knowable with absolute certainty.
Here's mine: We don't know for certain how big an effect we actually have. We don't know whether we are actually responsible for these events (e.g. mass extinction, climate change). But what we do know is that trying to prevent or reverse these things would definitely harm real people, right now, while making certain groups more wealthy and powerful, and keeping certain other groups poor and weak.
Therefore, we should not do what we know will certainly cause harm, unless and until we know that not doing it will certainly cause greater harm.
Well, current thinking is that the dinosaurs went extinct when a meteorite hit the earth. Absent a large rock or other large-scale disaster, the rate of species disappearing really does need explanation.
Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control?
The climate is our fault, the species are our fault--everything is humanity's fault, clearly. I guess we should all go live on the asteroids where there's nothing but rock. But then we'd be guilty of ruining a perfectly good asteroid belt...
So I guess the "greenest" solution is to load all of our consciousnesses into computers run on electricity generated by solar panels and wind power. Or maybe just solar power, in space. Surely then humans could be absolved of their guilt for ruining everything.
Of course there are other possibilities, but this is such an important question. Should we sit and wait for even more extensive proof that we're causing the problem? I guess we could go to our graves in the certain knowledge that we were right; I'd prefer the scenario where we try our best to avert the extinction of the species, even if it means being wrong a few times.
As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring.
But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen.
The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem.
And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.
If fossil fuels are so vital to developing countries why are you wasting them on luxury goods? Surely you should be campaigning for massive reduction in fossil fuel use in developed countries (who can afford sustainable and nuclear power generation technologies).
In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?
Why don't you think about corrupt, evil governments that want to keep the population a manageable size so they can remain in power and continue exploiting people.
I don't know where you are from, but where I come from, we value freedom and the right to self-determination. Trying to control other people--to prevent them from doing normal, natural things like having families--is wrong.
There is no shortage of food, nor of living space, on this planet. The problems are getting the food and the people to the right places. The solution to those problems is not to sterilize people--medically or legally--against their will. The only reason to do that is to keep certain people in power so they can continue to exploit everyone else. And that is evil.
So that is what is so bad about it.
Where I come from? I come from a country where gypsies have 6,7,8,9, more children, sucking welfare checks from the government. They occupy their spare time with laying around, marking retired, defenseless people for robberies and extortion, sending their children to developed countries to pickpocket. They view their children as a resource to exploit in one way or another. And before you make an attempt to defend them, saying that they are in an unfortunate position, I have to inform you that they are very much content with their position and do not want to change it at all. They like their lives the way they are. They think of it like culture. It certainly is one, whether it is worthy of preserving is a wholly other discussion.
So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
Now, who are you (not literally you) to say how many children I'm allowed to have? Who are you to control the size of my family? What business is it--or should it be--of yours? (Maybe we just have very different ideas about the proper roles of government.)
Anyway, if the problem is too many undeserving people on welfare, change the eligibility requirements for receiving welfare.
> So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
You haven't? I think that, say, the Soviet Union would be an example of that, and communism in general. Although one could argue that that wasn't a case of self-determinism. It depends on the scale you're talking about. I think there are many examples of mobs of one scale or another being convinced to follow a certain path which had negative consequences. If the mob agrees with its leader, are its actions "self-determined"? Or if they think they're headed for success, are they "impairing" themselves? What matters, intent or results?
When you are presented with any situation in your life it's always possible that you have incomplete information and there is the theoretical possibility of some 'uncomprehendable' factor at work. In response to that dilemma you could refuse to ever try and make any action to improve your life because you might have misunderstood the situation. You could believe that any attempt to gain knowledge and act on that knowledge is wrong because there are always greater 'mystical' forces at play and you can never be sure if you are right. That is a radically anti-science and anti-civilisation position.
It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces.
You are completely misrepresenting my position. I did not say that we should do nothing. What I am saying is that we should not do things that will definitely harm people to try to stop something that 1) we do not know will happen, and 2) we do not know we can affect.
If you are advocating doing such things, then that is an anti-civilisation position.
> It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces.
I have not said anything of the sort. You are misrepresenting me to such an extent that it's simply ridiculous. I have not said in any way that our political or economic systems are good or or well-functioning or do not cause harm. Nor have I said in any way that we should not attempt to understand or interact with the world, nor have I said anything about mystical forces.
You have accused me of thinking and saying these things in several comments now. It seems a common tactic for one side of these issues to accuse the other of taking "extreme," "anti-science," "mystical" positions. That is simply dishonest. And having demonstrated such blatant dishonesty, I don't know why anyone would believe anything else you say.
You're effectively trolling, and I won't feed you anymore.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_...
Also, http://lesswrong.com/lw/iv/the_futility_of_emergence/ .
The downvotes are no surprise. That's what one gets for expressing an unpopular opinion. It's disappointing, though, for people to downvote instead of responding with counter-arguments. But, again, no surprise.
Do you want to know why people are downvoting you, or are you just ranting about pro-communists trying to squash your opinion?
I mean, don't you think the downvotes are because you say ridiculous nonsense like HN is heavily left leaning and has enough pro-communists to down vote your posts? (Because that requires not just enough Reds to down vote but a lack of non-Reds to supply corrective upvotes).
My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. Not necessarily pro-communist, but the left does also lean toward communist and socialist ideas. If you disagree with one of those assertions, feel free to say why. I might be wrong about HN's readership, but that is my impression.
That may very well be the elephant in the room. In all the talks about AGW/climate change, biodiversity, etc, I've never seen anyone talk about the issue of increasing automation and unemployment, and how they may be connected politically.
If increasing automation results in increasing unemployment, that could result in increasing social unrest. What better way to prevent that than by reducing the population. And what better way to do that than by convincing people that we're killing the planet and need to stop having babies.
I don't know about grand conspiracies, but as far as emergent behaviors, it's very interesting.
That is because you are so far-right. Everything looks left wing from over there, even the soft right wing that makes up most of HN.
Well, that certainly is ominous. Can you give any (anonymous) examples of such conclusions?
Interesting that your comment got quickly downvoted, too. There are at least some people around here who really don't like those insinuations.
BTW, have you published your research anywhere? Like, even on some anonymous blog, or a comment on a relevant one? Sounds like something that should be spread around beyond this little HN thread.
However, humans are quite omnivorous and have a really widely spread population...
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-exti...
Corn, wheat, rice.
What else do you need?
I've been out driving across Europe for the past year. What strikes you about Europe is that almost every square meter of it is man controlled. The most wildlife they have are a few deer and wild boar. Even squirrels are rare.
Of course there are some counter-balancing effects as well, such as that if you really only have those few species plenty of diseases will lose their reservoir hosts.
Eco-systems are fragile, any attempt so far to create a stand-alone biosphere that I know about has failed.
I also miss the oceans in your little table and I think those + all the oxygen generating plants and trees are really rather important for life on Earth. And those plants rely on insects for their pollination. And those insects in turn are kept in check by all the predators on insects which are missing from your list as well. And so on...
From another perspective, the earth's ecosystems are robust. Life on this planet has yet to become extinct, despite the universe's "trying" several times. When one species declines, another takes its place. One ecosystem declines, another increases.
Isn't this just the Lion King, the Circle of Life and all that?
Keep in mind that humans are also just a single species and with global air travel and enormous numbers we're setting ourselves up for a pandemic. Nature loves large numbers of well connected individuals in close proximity.
And the way we're using anti-biotics could come back to bite us.
In reality, we could all probably continue to live on a planet that has just 20 or so species left.
Everything else, we'll have to describe to children with stories.
Deleted comment
If true, that's a symptom.
Your very small list is not self-sustaining. Every living thing evolved in the context of every other living thing around it. While the current mix is not the only essential configuration, a large mix is essential for there to be anything from your list.
At the least: it took millions of years to get the all but uncountable list of life we have today. Why destroy it when it's not at all necessary to do so. We can never put it back, or create anything even close to it. The best we can do is to not fuck up.
* bees for pollination
* cotton for the cloths
* chickens because they are cheaper to raise
* bananas because in some countries are the main "cereal"
* soy because it naturally fixates nitrogen
I'm not sure what to select to get all the vitamins. And remember to add lot of fungus and beetles to eat the scraps. And a few fishes for the dolphins.