3 ms·

> Life itself is a complex system that radically altered its environment - and here we are now, billions of years later. We are replacing complex systems maint

> Life itself is a complex system that radically altered its environment - and here we are now, billions of years later. We are replacing complex systems maintained by homeostatic dynamic stabilities with simple systems requiring continuous inputs from the very systems we're deconstructing. And we're doing so on drastically asymmetrical time scales -- we're increasing the complexity of the replacement systems orders of magnitude more slowly than we are deconstructing existing ones. > I'm not a climate change denier. The problem is very real Climate breakdown is not the problem. It's just the most exigent of literally hundreds of breakdowns caused by a malignant ideology (unending so-called economic growth). We have only 50-70 harvests left due to rapid topsoil loss. Freshwater is disappearing fast. Most ecosystems on the planet are in various stages of collapse. > There are ways to deal with it If we put all hands on deck and made it a global priority, we might avert the complete breakdown of the stable climate our agriculture depends on. Whether this would be enough to deal with other crises is questionable. It would be worth trying. But the question is irrelevant, because all hands are not on deck. They're mostly working on trivia, warfare, and further ecosystem destruction. There isn't the slightest hint that we are ready to deal with any of our global crises (indeed, on most issues, we're slowly retreating into national, mutually-hostile bunkers). > and we'll figure out more if needed. Ah. The faith-based solution.

Florin_Andrei 9y ago
Climate change is the sick old man of HN. Post anything on this topic, and a bunch of strange things happen. For a forum for people who pride themselves on being rational, it sure is full of irrational, fact-averse deniers. Or, at the other extreme, you get all these fire-and-brimstone doom predictions. Weird.
candiodari 9y ago
> We are replacing complex systems maintained by homeostatic dynamic stabilities Yes because sudden unsustainable population explosions of animal and plant species is strange, weird, and never happened unless humans were responsible for it. Oh wait. Nope. It's in fact ridiculously common. Areas that have had the same fauna and flora for thousands of years are a rare exception, they're not common at all. Exceptions include of course extreme environments like deserts or ice sheets. Rapid unsustainable change is the norm in nature, not the exception. That means that human population growth fueled by fossil fuels is not strange, nor will it be anywhere near as destructive as advertised. > unending so-called economic growth Okay, now look up what happened to species whose growth stagnates. Now, don't get me wrong. After a total disaster, their populations usually remain over zero for millions of years, so they don't quite go extinct, or perhaps I should say, not very quickly. They do however lose 90%+ population in a short time. That seems like a much preferable way of living, doesn't it ? > We have only 50-70 harvests left due to rapid topsoil loss. Freshwater is disappearing fast. Most ecosystems on the planet are in various stages of collapse. This is the norm, not the exception. Also, they're in a state of change, not collapse. The end result is simple: we will need to adapt, and failure to adapt will affect humans in the exact same way it will affect every other species. > Ah. The faith-based solution. Well, having the economy adapt worked for thousands of years, and most attempts at forcing a fix from above are documented disasters. I don't get it. Just how many examples of governments forcing change ending in disaster do people need to admit that they do not have a solution. That they are not in fact any better than, for example, the early 20th century socialists and that their solutions, however well-intentioned and however "true" and non-corrupt and ... their execution will be, it can't work ? The problem is that you need to come up with a solution, not one that would work in theory if you had total and complete willing obedience of 100% of the world population, you need a solution that would mostly work if 90% of your own party was doing their very best to sabotage it, with 50% of the higher up posts in the party taken up by malevolent psychopaths. Why ? Because they will. Look at Bill Clinton, arguably leader of progressive America for over a decade, and then remember that he used his power to force women to have sex with him. And on the other side of the coin, there's Trump. Grabs 'em by ... Those are the people in charge. This is the real world.

Florin_Andrei 9y ago

Climate change is the sick old man of HN. Post anything on this topic, and a bunch of strange things happen. For a forum for people who pride themselves on being rational, it sure is full of irrational, fact-averse deniers. Or, at the other extreme, you get all these fire-and-brimstone doom predictions. Weird.

candiodari 9y ago

> We are replacing complex systems maintained by homeostatic dynamic stabilities Yes because sudden unsustainable population explosions of animal and plant species is strange, weird, and never happened unless humans were responsible for it. Oh wait. Nope. It's in fact ridiculously common. Areas that have had the same fauna and flora for thousands of years are a rare exception, they're not common at all. Exceptions include of course extreme environments like deserts or ice sheets. Rapid unsustainable change is the norm in nature, not the exception. That means that human population growth fueled by fossil fuels is not strange, nor will it be anywhere near as destructive as advertised. > unending so-called economic growth Okay, now look up what happened to species whose growth stagnates. Now, don't get me wrong. After a total disaster, their populations usually remain over zero for millions of years, so they don't quite go extinct, or perhaps I should say, not very quickly. They do however lose 90%+ population in a short time. That seems like a much preferable way of living, doesn't it ? > We have only 50-70 harvests left due to rapid topsoil loss. Freshwater is disappearing fast. Most ecosystems on the planet are in various stages of collapse. This is the norm, not the exception. Also, they're in a state of change, not collapse. The end result is simple: we will need to adapt, and failure to adapt will affect humans in the exact same way it will affect every other species. > Ah. The faith-based solution. Well, having the economy adapt worked for thousands of years, and most attempts at forcing a fix from above are documented disasters. I don't get it. Just how many examples of governments forcing change ending in disaster do people need to admit that they do not have a solution. That they are not in fact any better than, for example, the early 20th century socialists and that their solutions, however well-intentioned and however "true" and non-corrupt and ... their execution will be, it can't work ? The problem is that you need to come up with a solution, not one that would work in theory if you had total and complete willing obedience of 100% of the world population, you need a solution that would mostly work if 90% of your own party was doing their very best to sabotage it, with 50% of the higher up posts in the party taken up by malevolent psychopaths. Why ? Because they will. Look at Bill Clinton, arguably leader of progressive America for over a decade, and then remember that he used his power to force women to have sex with him. And on the other side of the coin, there's Trump. Grabs 'em by ... Those are the people in charge. This is the real world.