8 ms·

As Seas Warm, Galápagos Islands Face a Giant Evolutionary Test

64 points by digital55 8y ago

crispinb 8y ago
Every day, another sign of collapse. Fluffy-minded business execs, SV megaconsumers, and economist fairy-people will hardly notice (yet).
- dluan 8y ago
  For those who would like to watch the world collapse, I really recommend the podcast Ashes Ashes: https://ashesashes.org/ https://ashesashes.org/
  - crispinb 8y ago
    Thanks, haven't come across that. I'm bemused by their claim to be optimists.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    An artistic take can be found at https://dark-mountain.net/ https://dark-mountain.net/ . I find their books quite engaging.
- esturk 8y ago
  There's also a bystander effect at play here. (Some) people and organizations would like to help but don't know where to start or what needs to been done. It's like asking some teenagers what they can do and it's not much for any single individual.
- makerofspoons 8y ago
  At what point do we start seriously discussing solutions? We could right now ground the aircraft, ban meat production, institute a steep tax on gasoline and electricity, stop the ships, ban deep sea fishing, etc. The problem is these solutions are political suicide in a democracy and people will never accept them, but barring magic carbon capture technology that can scale is there really an alternative besides 'shut it all down' (besides plan on starving to death or dying in a resource war)?
  - crispinb 8y ago
    If you're talking about climate change as the immediate salient issue, in practical terms (ie. taking politics into account), after three decades of deliberate delay, it's too late. If you're talking about the underlying cause (the ideology of "economic growth"), a solution to that is even more distant. Superstitions die hard, as we've seen with the more venerable religions.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    When it's far too late. Specifically, when comparatively wealthy people start feeling the effects. So far, most don't. It's just beginning to happen, as property owners in Miami beach realize they own a stranded asset, but for most wealthy people it's still a non-event.
    - doctorpangloss 8y ago
      I don't know dude, an earthquake in California and Washington is going to create many more victims and destroy many more houses than the slowly rising waters in Florida. Even if I agree with your general sentiment that people will "wake up" when it's far too late, I really doubt the reasons will be financial in a world where everyone is economically poor and accounting rich.
      - CalRobert 8y ago
        Sure, but earthquakes are unrelated. When someone goes bankrupt because they're $500k underwater on a Miami Beach condo or a Sierra Nevada cabin (fire risk) they'll look for someone to blame.
  - belorn 8y ago
    Why should car owners just get a steep tax when owning a car is more polluting that eating meat? The closest to serious discussing that actually follow the model of worst offender having to pay the most is the concept of carbon tax that is strictly based on how much carbon get released, which would then cover everything from aircraft, meat, cars, ships and everything else.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Some of those who deny anthropomorphic global climate change are undoubtedly ideologically blind and/or ignorant. But I suspect that many are acting in what seems their economic self-interest. That is, they believe that they can accumulate more wealth, and mitigate potential impacts for themselves and their descendants. And maybe they're right. But I do hope that they'll feel at least a little guilty.
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    I kind of hope the people of the future will see the deliberate ignoring or misinformation of anthropomorphic global climate change as a crime against humanity.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
medlazik 8y ago
Solutions have been seriously discussed by real socialist politicians for years. Problem will start seeing actual solutions when people start massively voting for them. Current stage of capitalism is strictly incompatible with sustainable development. It's the root cause, it's almost never discussed here. https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/the-elephant-in-the-room-capitalism-and-sustainable-development/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/the-elephant-in-the-...
- crispinb 8y ago
  That's a hard row to hoe - a civilisation's foundational superstitions are invisible to most of its members, so a wide-scale questioning of them is unfathomably difficult to prompt. Think Protestant Reformation as the scale of the conceptual and emotional shifts needed. It's too late now, but it would be lovely to go back in time, say 50 years, and keep plugging away with attempts to undermine the ideologies: there is no such thing as an 'economy', still less 'economic growth' (and as for 'sustainable' growth ...). We'd probably still lose though. The winners have already bought up half of New Zealand to retire to as things go increasingly awry amongst the general population.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Precisely this. People continually underestimate the sheer power of ideology in perpetuating these social structures within capitalism. What's a shame is that Althusser and others in the 70s warned us about them and explained their functioning rather clearly. Talk about the ideological function of capitalism has been quietly pushed to the edges of the discourse (e.g Slavoj Zizek) while everyone scrambles to think of a solution compatible with ever-expanding capital (driven by profit at any cost) and "saving the planet", in democracies controlled by anyone but the demos. Even the mention of a critique of capitalism rather than a particular "implementation" or set of policies within a capitalist instance is enough to rile people up and turn them off what you're saying. Thankfully, in (some) academic circles there is much less of this kind of uncritical backlash against challenging orthodoxies. When Marx wrote, >Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices of so-called public opinion, to which I have never made concessions, now as aforetime the maxim of the great Florentine is mine: “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. [Follow your own course, and let people talk – paraphrased from Dante] Little did he know, these prejudices of public opinion would get us to the catastrophe we're heading towards now, both culturally (Adorno et al.), ecologically (Bookchin, Patrick Murray) and socially (Marx, Marcuse, Althusser etc.)
torpfactory 8y ago
Meta-comment: I just wanted to mention how civil and logical debate is in this thread. I’ve seen discussions of economic systems on HN get way in the weeds with personal attacks and such. Good job team!
- crispinb 8y ago
  I'm not sure my initial comment quite met that standard, although the statements were directed at groups rather than HN individuals. That might be the best I can do on the civility front.
graycat 8y ago
Let's consider this claim from the NYT: First, nearly all of evolution, likely including on the Galápagos, is very slow. How slow? Well, over the past 40,000 years there should have been nearly no change at all. Why no change in 40,000 years? Well, we can consider people in Japan and Western Europe and the rate of change in mitochondrial DNA and conclude that the most recent common ancestor was about 40,000 years ago. Then each of those two peoples are necessarily closer genetically to their most recent common ancestor than they are to each other. Since they are so close together now and each of them even closer their most recent common ancestor, there's been nearly no change in those humans in the last 40,000 years. So, we don't expect much change in the plants and animals on the Galápagos in the last 40,000 years either. But in the last 40,000 years, the climate has at times been warmer and colder than now, both significantly, and since the plants and animals are still on the Galápagos now, that is, lived through those warmer/colder times in the past, we have to conclude that there is no "giant evolutionary test" in the Galápagos now or soon. So, the NYT is running a story about the dangers of global warming. They have been running lots of such stories for years, have the stories something of a continuing narrative. IMHO here I just debunked one of the NYT narrative stories. I've done that before going back years. As a result, I place no credibility in the NYT. In short, to me on paper the NYT can't compete with Charmin and on the Internet is useless for wrapping dead fish heads or starting fire place fires in the winter. I no longer pay any attention to the NYT except occasionally to debunk their nonsense. There really is a giant evolutionary test going on now, with great severity: In the countries more advanced economically, including the US, especially in NYC and with some irony with the readers of the NYT, the birth rate is so low we're going extinct, literally. Since we are going extinct so rapidly that on the time scale of evolutionary change we could be extinct in the blink of an eye, the situation for people and civilization in the more advanced countries is a severe "giant evolutionary test". If we don't go extinct, then we will be in one of the fastest periods of highly significant evolutionary change in all of earth's history. So, we have some advice for the NYT: Since to stay in business they will need readers, they should just f'get about reproduction in the Galápagos and pay attention to reproduction in NYC. But my conclusion is that the NYT has gotten a lot of ad revenue from eyeballs from headlines of scary stories in their continuing narrative about the big threat, "the sky is falling", of global warming. They ignore any and all debunking and will keep the money making narrative going as long as they can. If this narrative fails, then they will find another one. As bad as such a narrative is, there is a letter from T. Jefferson about the newspapers that shows that in his time the papers were much worse than even the NYT. So, where am I wrong?
magwa101 8y ago
"test" - crisis"; potato - potahto. The headline screams "but those plucky animals may just pull it off".

64 points by digital55 8y ago

Every day, another sign of collapse. Fluffy-minded business execs, SV megaconsumers, and economist fairy-people will hardly notice (yet).

dluan 8y ago
For those who would like to watch the world collapse, I really recommend the podcast Ashes Ashes: https://ashesashes.org/ https://ashesashes.org/
- crispinb 8y ago
  Thanks, haven't come across that. I'm bemused by their claim to be optimists.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  An artistic take can be found at https://dark-mountain.net/ https://dark-mountain.net/ . I find their books quite engaging.
esturk 8y ago
There's also a bystander effect at play here. (Some) people and organizations would like to help but don't know where to start or what needs to been done. It's like asking some teenagers what they can do and it's not much for any single individual.
makerofspoons 8y ago
At what point do we start seriously discussing solutions? We could right now ground the aircraft, ban meat production, institute a steep tax on gasoline and electricity, stop the ships, ban deep sea fishing, etc. The problem is these solutions are political suicide in a democracy and people will never accept them, but barring magic carbon capture technology that can scale is there really an alternative besides 'shut it all down' (besides plan on starving to death or dying in a resource war)?
- crispinb 8y ago
  If you're talking about climate change as the immediate salient issue, in practical terms (ie. taking politics into account), after three decades of deliberate delay, it's too late. If you're talking about the underlying cause (the ideology of "economic growth"), a solution to that is even more distant. Superstitions die hard, as we've seen with the more venerable religions.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  When it's far too late. Specifically, when comparatively wealthy people start feeling the effects. So far, most don't. It's just beginning to happen, as property owners in Miami beach realize they own a stranded asset, but for most wealthy people it's still a non-event.
  - doctorpangloss 8y ago
    I don't know dude, an earthquake in California and Washington is going to create many more victims and destroy many more houses than the slowly rising waters in Florida. Even if I agree with your general sentiment that people will "wake up" when it's far too late, I really doubt the reasons will be financial in a world where everyone is economically poor and accounting rich.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      Sure, but earthquakes are unrelated. When someone goes bankrupt because they're $500k underwater on a Miami Beach condo or a Sierra Nevada cabin (fire risk) they'll look for someone to blame.
- belorn 8y ago
  Why should car owners just get a steep tax when owning a car is more polluting that eating meat? The closest to serious discussing that actually follow the model of worst offender having to pay the most is the concept of carbon tax that is strictly based on how much carbon get released, which would then cover everything from aircraft, meat, cars, ships and everything else.
mirimir 8y ago
Some of those who deny anthropomorphic global climate change are undoubtedly ideologically blind and/or ignorant. But I suspect that many are acting in what seems their economic self-interest. That is, they believe that they can accumulate more wealth, and mitigate potential impacts for themselves and their descendants. And maybe they're right. But I do hope that they'll feel at least a little guilty.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  I kind of hope the people of the future will see the deliberate ignoring or misinformation of anthropomorphic global climate change as a crime against humanity.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

medlazik 8y ago

Solutions have been seriously discussed by real socialist politicians for years. Problem will start seeing actual solutions when people start massively voting for them. Current stage of capitalism is strictly incompatible with sustainable development. It's the root cause, it's almost never discussed here. https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/the-elephant-in-the-room-capitalism-and-sustainable-development/ https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/the-elephant-in-the-...

crispinb 8y ago
That's a hard row to hoe - a civilisation's foundational superstitions are invisible to most of its members, so a wide-scale questioning of them is unfathomably difficult to prompt. Think Protestant Reformation as the scale of the conceptual and emotional shifts needed. It's too late now, but it would be lovely to go back in time, say 50 years, and keep plugging away with attempts to undermine the ideologies: there is no such thing as an 'economy', still less 'economic growth' (and as for 'sustainable' growth ...). We'd probably still lose though. The winners have already bought up half of New Zealand to retire to as things go increasingly awry amongst the general population.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Precisely this. People continually underestimate the sheer power of ideology in perpetuating these social structures within capitalism. What's a shame is that Althusser and others in the 70s warned us about them and explained their functioning rather clearly. Talk about the ideological function of capitalism has been quietly pushed to the edges of the discourse (e.g Slavoj Zizek) while everyone scrambles to think of a solution compatible with ever-expanding capital (driven by profit at any cost) and "saving the planet", in democracies controlled by anyone but the demos. Even the mention of a critique of capitalism rather than a particular "implementation" or set of policies within a capitalist instance is enough to rile people up and turn them off what you're saying. Thankfully, in (some) academic circles there is much less of this kind of uncritical backlash against challenging orthodoxies. When Marx wrote, >Every opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. As to prejudices of so-called public opinion, to which I have never made concessions, now as aforetime the maxim of the great Florentine is mine: “Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti. [Follow your own course, and let people talk – paraphrased from Dante] Little did he know, these prejudices of public opinion would get us to the catastrophe we're heading towards now, both culturally (Adorno et al.), ecologically (Bookchin, Patrick Murray) and socially (Marx, Marcuse, Althusser etc.)

torpfactory 8y ago

Meta-comment: I just wanted to mention how civil and logical debate is in this thread. I’ve seen discussions of economic systems on HN get way in the weeds with personal attacks and such. Good job team!

crispinb 8y ago
I'm not sure my initial comment quite met that standard, although the statements were directed at groups rather than HN individuals. That might be the best I can do on the civility front.

graycat 8y ago

Let's consider this claim from the NYT: First, nearly all of evolution, likely including on the Galápagos, is very slow. How slow? Well, over the past 40,000 years there should have been nearly no change at all. Why no change in 40,000 years? Well, we can consider people in Japan and Western Europe and the rate of change in mitochondrial DNA and conclude that the most recent common ancestor was about 40,000 years ago. Then each of those two peoples are necessarily closer genetically to their most recent common ancestor than they are to each other. Since they are so close together now and each of them even closer their most recent common ancestor, there's been nearly no change in those humans in the last 40,000 years. So, we don't expect much change in the plants and animals on the Galápagos in the last 40,000 years either. But in the last 40,000 years, the climate has at times been warmer and colder than now, both significantly, and since the plants and animals are still on the Galápagos now, that is, lived through those warmer/colder times in the past, we have to conclude that there is no "giant evolutionary test" in the Galápagos now or soon. So, the NYT is running a story about the dangers of global warming. They have been running lots of such stories for years, have the stories something of a continuing narrative. IMHO here I just debunked one of the NYT narrative stories. I've done that before going back years. As a result, I place no credibility in the NYT. In short, to me on paper the NYT can't compete with Charmin and on the Internet is useless for wrapping dead fish heads or starting fire place fires in the winter. I no longer pay any attention to the NYT except occasionally to debunk their nonsense. There really is a giant evolutionary test going on now, with great severity: In the countries more advanced economically, including the US, especially in NYC and with some irony with the readers of the NYT, the birth rate is so low we're going extinct, literally. Since we are going extinct so rapidly that on the time scale of evolutionary change we could be extinct in the blink of an eye, the situation for people and civilization in the more advanced countries is a severe "giant evolutionary test". If we don't go extinct, then we will be in one of the fastest periods of highly significant evolutionary change in all of earth's history. So, we have some advice for the NYT: Since to stay in business they will need readers, they should just f'get about reproduction in the Galápagos and pay attention to reproduction in NYC. But my conclusion is that the NYT has gotten a lot of ad revenue from eyeballs from headlines of scary stories in their continuing narrative about the big threat, "the sky is falling", of global warming. They ignore any and all debunking and will keep the money making narrative going as long as they can. If this narrative fails, then they will find another one. As bad as such a narrative is, there is a letter from T. Jefferson about the newspapers that shows that in his time the papers were much worse than even the NYT. So, where am I wrong?

magwa101 8y ago

"test" - crisis"; potato - potahto. The headline screams "but those plucky animals may just pull it off".