14 ms·
Alaska’s Permafrost Is Thawing
- minikites 9y agoI often wonder if this type of thing is an answer to the Fermi Paradox, that complex societies inevitably destroy themselves by failing to solve fatal problems requiring collective action.
- jandrese 9y agoI don't buy it. Even if we do fuck this up royally and cause a mass extinction event (which seems increasingly likely), humans will survive. There may (probably will) be a loss of population, but it's the sort of thing humans can definitely recover from given time. At the timescales of the Fermi Paradox this shouldn't be an issue. It's barely a blip.
- zzalpha 9y agoThe Fermi paradox still applies if, every time society reaches a point of advanced development, it sets itself back to the stone age by triggering an extinction level event.
- jandrese 9y agoSo the solution to the Fermi Paradox is that nobody ever learns from their mistakes?
- zzalpha 9y agoWe can't learn from our own mistakes now. What makes you think, 2,000 years from now, our ancestors will look back and a) remember what happened accurately, and b) learn from it? I can imagine someone in the future saying "No man, that wasn't humanity's fault... the earth just goes through natural cycles. Or maybe it was just the sun." In short: I think you're denying our contemporary and historical reality if you think that, in the future, we'll do any differently. Edit: As an aside, I want you to reflect, for a moment, on our ability to understand human society even just 500 years back. Even at a time with decent written records, there's still entire disciplines focused on trying to understand how those people worked and lived, and enormous amounts of disagreement on the same. Now imagine we fast forward, say, 2,000 years after we've destroyed modern society and started to rebuild in earnest. An enormous amount of information about who we are is now locked up in optical, magnetic, and solid state storage, and the technology to read that information will be destroyed right along with the rest of us. Much of the rest is stored on paper that doesn't have the long-term archival properties of something like vellum. Why do you think our ancestors will understand us any better than we understand people in the middle ages?
- jerf 9y agoThe problem with this answer to the Fermi paradox, along with many others, is that it can't just be "very likely". It has to be essentially 100% likely. And while I'm sure a lot of people are ready to believe "very likely", "literally zero civilizations out of millions manages to survive ecological catastrophe", despite those millions of civilizations having fundamentally different mental architectures, ecologies, circumstances, time scales, and difficulties in spreading out into space is really a tough sell. You're really telling me the sentient Bee People of Madeupertrus XIII, whose singular queen dominates all decisions on the planet in the universal hive mind, couldn't figure out they needed to stop burning anthracite coal if they wanted to live? Personally, I think "it's just inevitable that all civilizations die from ecological collapse" takes some of the emotional frisson out of the doom and gloom as well; if it's just that inevitable, you can't really blame anyone, can you? If it's inevitable, it isn't really "fossil fuel's" fault (after all it is likely that many civilizations never even had fossil fuels, or lacked an oxygenated environment or similar that makes combusting them so easy), or careless use of farm land, or anything else... it's just the inevitable workings of the impersonal universe. As with many other putative answers to the Fermi paradox, I don't think this one is powerful enough to explain it.
- minikites 9y ago>despite those millions of civilizations having fundamentally different mental architectures, ecologies, circumstances, time scales, and difficulties in spreading out into space is really a tough sell Absolutely, which is why I said "an answer" as opposed to "the answer".
- Broken_Hippo 9y agoOnly, we won't be going back to the stone age. Ever. Even if the tech is wiped out. We know all this stuff is possible and it is unlikely that everyone that knows something will die, just as it is unlikely that all print resources will be taken away. Cars and cell phone towers will still likely exist. Televisions, radios, computers. The remains of power plants will stand. We'll continue to wash our hands after shitting because we won't lose germ theory. Sorry, but there is no going back to the stone age. At worst, the tech of today becomes the goal of humanity after our numbers rebuild.
- PoachedSausage 9y agoUnfortunately we only get the one free gift of fossil fuel energy accumulated over millions of years.
- jandrese 9y agoInsuring that we don't make the same mistake again? Development would be slower if you have to start with renewables, but it's not blocked entirely.
- PeterisP 9y agoThere's some historical arguments that without fossil fuels, the industrial revolution doesn't happen and we'd never get beyond that block. I.e. if man/animal labor is more effective than crude machines, then societies never make mass investment into crude machines and don't prepare large numbers of people working with said machines, so there's no stimulus that might ever reach fancy machines that might be actually useful. We'd have the same fate as the medieval Chinese society, which invented lots of nifty tech centuries before Europe, but didn't go beyond that to the industrial revolution for social reasons until the progress elsewhere forced the social reasons to change.
- echlebek 9y agoI think the consensus is that the industrial revolution would have been impossible without fossil fuels.
- jandrese 9y agoIt would have been impossible to power steam engines with wood instead of coal? I get that it is less efficient, but wood burners certainly existed back in that era. Every train would have needed a balloon funnel and there would have been far more significant logging operations and probably deforestation problems, but it doesn't seem completely impossible.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jadell 9y agoIt would depend on how often the "in-tribe altruism / out-tribe selfishness" trait crops up in other intelligent species.
- minikites 9y agoExactly, and to me that leads to the question of whether or not selfishness is required for a civilization/society to advance.
- convolvatron 9y agonot much of advance if shortly after we all drown trying to come up with costing models for lifeboat usage
- minikites 9y agoThis is veering off topic but your example is one of the reasons capitalism strikes me as a transitional system. It only makes sense to weigh the cost of something like a lifeboat or healthcare when the inputs are scarce. When the inputs become plentiful there's much less of a reason to be so miserly.
- abhi3 9y agoThe most convincing answer to the Fermi Paradox I have read is that we are not seeing space faring civilizations because all planets have dysfunctional political systems and had to cancel their space programs under citizen pressure to 'solve problems at home first'.
- bonzini 9y agoAnother is that a sustainable civilization doesn't evolve to the point of being visible.
- AaronFriel 9y agoNews like this piques my existential dread over things like the "Clathrate gun hypothesis". I really would not like to check if that hypothesis is true the hard way.
- adwhit 9y agoI think we can all agree that the conservative thing to do is carry on like we are and see if we destroy the planet.
- spaceseaman 9y agoWe wouldn't want to waste our time and do something productive like encourage renewable forms of fuel would we? (via things like taxation which could account for the real external costs of fossil fuels). That would be ridiculous. Let's just keep using these things that will run out and are clearly bad for our environment. There's just no point to making the world a little better if it's going to hurt those oil and gas companies! (sarcasm of course)
- Shywim 9y agoWhat should we do? What should I do? When I look through my window, nobody cares. I do waste sorting while none my neightbors care, what should I do? I don't throw waste on the street and nature while most of my compatriot don't care, what should I do? I try to use "clean" and expensive resources like eletric cars while "bad" resources are cheaper because my government keep promising to make taxes on these but don't do anything, what should I do? Why should I waste my time trying to change the world, thinking about it when I'm just a randon civilian that have barely enough to donate to an ONG? Why should I waste my life for other people that don't care at all and enjoy theirs?
- spaceseaman 9y agoYou collectively organize to make changes at a government level rather than a local one? That's why governments exist - You can't do anything mate. You must organize. > Why should I waste my life for other people that don't care at all and enjoy theirs? You are legit asking the question every single public servant has ever asked ever. How much do you actually care? If it's enough, then do something about it and get in government. If it's not, then so be it: you'll have to deal or try and elect politicians who show they actually recognize that our current methods are atrocious. > my government keep promising to make taxes on these but don't do anything, what should I do? Elect different politicians. If they can't get enough votes, try and convince people around you. If that doesn't work, run yourself. I know this may sound condescending - not my intention at all. I've just had the same thought process and my only real conclusion was: 1.) I could be apathetic and not care. This is what most people do. This works fine - I can be happy. 2.) I can work my self to death to try and improve things. If it doesn't work, at least I know I tried. If it does work, then I have succeeded. Just depends where your priorities are mate. Some people don't have option (2) at all. It's your call now. Personally I think that governments have been irresponsible and shifted these policies onto the people because they're unpopular. No one wants to be the guy instituting a carbon tax because there's plenty of anti-carbon tax rhetoric out there ready to annihilate you. Something you can do right now is start getting rid of that rhetoric. Informing yourself so you can take on those arguments with people might be another option
- anorphirith 9y agounfortunately it's been thawing for a very long time just like the permafrost in siberia. it only comes back up in the news once in a while. it's exponentially increasing global warming
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- edejong 9y agoI wonder if an expert could chime in on why this land (and carbon) would not be taken up by larger, more developed plant life, such as larger shrubs or trees. It seems conditions would be ideal: fresh, bacteria rich soil, high CO_2 levels and plenty of water.
- rch 9y agoExtended periods of winter darkness maybe?
- jackmott 9y agostuff grows huge in the summer though
- quakeguy 9y agoThat´s sort of what´s already happening. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/trees-tundras-border-are-growing-faster-hotter-climate http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/trees-tundras-borde...
- danieldk 9y agoThere was an article posted here two days ago [1], that states that Some scientists, however, held out hope that there would be a key offsetting process: As the Arctic warms, it might also stow away more carbon as it becomes greener and supports the additional plant life, particularly in tundra regions. This “Arctic greening” is indeed occurring, but the new research suggests that the permafrost losses in early winter are more than enough to offset that. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15083989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15083989
- yostrovs 9y agoI find it odd that all the reported consequences of global warming are negative. Why wouldn't a modest rise in temperature do some good in at least some ways? I suspect that that would not advance the demanded panic, and is therefore ignored.
- 9y ago
- mudil 9y agoIn his book "The Beginning of Infinity", David Deutch gives a hypothetical example of a technologically advanced space ship arriving to an empty spot in space, a cube the size of the solar system. It is such an inhospitable spot, and yet this civilization can create everything to live there. There are billions of tons of hydrogen atoms in that "empty" space, hence fusion is harvested, new elements created, etc etc. The point that Deutch is making is that problems are inevitable, and they can be solved by use of knowledge. It's not the end of world, people.
- mturmon 9y ago> "It's not the end of world, people." I have greater hopes for my 11-year-old than conservation of mass.
- mudil 9y agoYour 11 year old is already growing in the most prosperous and safest times ever in the human history.
- sqeaky 9y agoBy the violent crime statistics this is the point in time. But that has no relation to global warming or our (in)ability to deal with it. It might be too late or it might be no problem at all, but the current best research indicates it is going going to be a huge problem. It is almost as if you are intentionally missing the point.
- mudil 9y agoWell, I intentionally miss all the doom and gloom and doom and gloom.
- sqeaky 9y agoYou make it sound as though wishful thinking and impossible are benefits. Please don't complicate an already difficult situation this is a place where simple trolling for fun can and does cause real harm. Climate change deniers will point at trolls like you and claim to have more people on their side than really exist.
- eagsalazar2 9y agoIs there a site out there that details what the actual scenarios are and how to survive them (if at all possible)? I mean if there is a giant methane burp from the ocean floor, can I and my family survive by wearing gas masks for 7 days? I honestly have NO IDEA. Just curious if anyone has gone through this methodically and developed survival plans.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Scaevolus 9y agoMethane out-gassing is not a short-term catastrophe, it's a long-term one.
- missbit 9y agocomforting.
- stcredzero 9y agoIf we get to 6 degrees global warming, it's probably into the mass extinction realm. (As in the Permian–Triassic (P–Tr or P–T) extinction event) http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm http://globalwarming.berrens.nl/globalwarming.htm
- jackmott 9y agohumans have already caused a mass extinction. so it would be like....double secret mass extinction.
- stcredzero 9y agoThe best way to keep a secret is to make sure that everyone is dead.
- ansible 9y agoMy favorite bit about this is from a lecture by Daniel Dennett. 10K years ago, Humans and their associated animals (livestock, pets) accounted for less than 1% of the land animal biomass. Now, we account for 98% (mostly cattle). This has had a drastic effect on the biosphere.
- acomjean 9y agoMy understanding of the attempts to bring back the mammoth from extinction is partially driven to preserve tundra permafrost. The mammoth removes the insulating snow layer.. seems like there might be easier ways, but it might work... http://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/ http://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- knowaveragejoe 9y agoBut I thought climate change was a ruse perpetrated by liberals looking to find another way to tax? Just think of the jobs that would be lost if we were to take actually decisive action about this!
- stcredzero 9y agoWhat is the likelihood of our precipitating a "methane gun" event?
- PeterisP 9y ago100% ? IIRC we might have prevented it with serious changes a couple years ago, but now it's going to happen and is already happening.
- stcredzero 9y agoIf that's true, then my understanding is that 4 degrees of warming is inevitable, and 5 degrees is likely. 6 degrees probably isn't ruled out.
- Diederich 9y agoDo you have children? I have a teenage son. A heretofore normal lifespan for him will bring him to the late 21st century. I can hardly think about what things will be like then.
- saalweachter 9y agoWhen my daughter is the age of my grandmother, it will be the 22nd century.
- Diederich 9y agoThat's incredibly sobering.
- saalweachter 9y ago... and I'll probably be 20 years in the grave.
- rsrcht12414 9y ago
- stillhere 9y agoI got rid of my car and moved back to "as safe a part of the city" so I could so I could do my part. The bus ride is 30 minutes each day to work -- the same as my previous commute from the suburbs. There's nothing really wrong with the bus infrastructure itself in my city. People just don't want to ride it because of the type of people it attracts (believe me, I hate it). But if you ride it during working hours you should be able to avoid most of these types of people. Anyway, I'm doing what I can for the environment but is there anything else that can realistically be done?
- Pigo 9y agoSo are we made at China for continuing to use both barrels on the environment? Trump, for being in office a few months? Or is this existential hate we all have for ourselves?
- bryananderson 9y agoI've become convinced that decisive action will never be taken as long as it requires a decrease in the standard of living (that is, less energy use). I am out of ideas for how to convince the world to drastically draw down our fossil fuel use. Everything has been tried. It has become a cliche that our problems cannot be solved by technology alone, but this one really may be up to technology alone. Human nature is not going to change.
- Diederich 9y agoOur nature can change at evolutionary time scales. Our ability to 'do things' used to be so limited, but is now growing quickly. The gap between our nature and our ability to change the environment around us is, I think, the root of many of our problems.
- Winterflow3r 9y agoIt seems we already have a large chunk of the tech as well (nuclear, wind, solar, biomass etc), but still seem to stick with fossil fuels for reasons of convenience(?).
- bryananderson 9y agoNo, we stick with fossil fuels because they are cheaper (at the scale we need). More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. This is what I was alluding to about technology. If we can make clean energy significantly cheaper to use at scale than fossil fuels, then the world will use it. More realistically, we need to make it cheaper to build new renewables than to keep using existing fossil fuel sources.
- macspoofing 9y ago>No, we stick with fossil fuels because they are cheaper (at the scale we need). More expensive energy -> less energy use -> lower standard of living. So why aren't we using nuclear?
- 9y ago
- VeronicaJJ123 9y agoDoes this mean we will have more agricultural land in Alaska over time? This might be a great news in that sense.