5 ms·

More of a philosophical perspective here: The eco-systems on Earth have evolved over a long time. Without bias against scientific progress, why do we think we c

More of a philosophical perspective here: The eco-systems on Earth have evolved over a long time. Without bias against scientific progress, why do we think we can "solve" this without going down a slippery slope of creating another problem? When is comes to complex systems that we don't completely understand, maybe the simplest solution is to just restore the system, that is "give up" on cows as human feed.

vallode 7y ago
Personally I think this is a pessimistic point of view. The reason we think we can "solve" these issues is because we have been doing a good job of using tools to help us along the way of human history. If we do as you propose, where do we stop? What makes us think we can "solve" anything? Computing, timber, fire, clean water. The truth is that humans are a part of the eco-system, and the system will evolve with us. I support slowing down certain things, so we do not hit a dead-end, since I am vegan myself. Giving up will not solve anything, especially since we have a hell of a lot of clean up to do.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  Or it might be a realistic point of view. My point was not give up on _solutions_. I am saying that there are real issues to be solved - for example, we do need some way to heat homes, we do need to transport ourselves - so find sustainable solutions to those. Provably (medically), we do not _need_ to be eating 60 kg of beef per person per year. The more we tinker with the system, the higher the risk we break something else. It's an inherent property of complex _systems_ that they are complex, and well, systems. Is it worth tinkering to try to solve a popular, but not essential issue like how can we continue to grow cows for human feed?
rkul 7y ago
Your argument implies that cows who did not eat seaweed survived and therefore we see cows not eating seaweed now. Since cows cannot live underwater and seaweed does not grow outside water, these "two worlds" could not meet and the outcome of their interaction is unknown. It might work, it might not, however, evolution was not here yet.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  You are focusing on a mechanistic view. My general point is we do not understand these systems well enough to take the risk to solve a non-essential issue, when we have the option to eliminate the risk altogether. Let me try a metaphor: Imagine you bought a new gadget for your car - you did not use it before, you're using it now and you like it. Turns out it influences the car so that your engine would die within 5 years instead of 20 years, and that it will die spectacularly (like explode). You don't know when but you know it's practically guaranteed to happen. You don't have the option to buy a new engine in the future, and you don't know what causes the gadget to impact your engine like this - you can kind of guess, but you don't understand it completely. You know that yanking out the gadget gives you a good chance to restore your broken engine, somewhat, and reduces the risk of implosion. Do you go about tinkering with adding stuff to the gadget because you really like it and want to keep using it despite knowing the risks, or do yank out the old gadget and make your peace with the fact that it's not possible to have it with this car? Replace car with planet Earth above.
eemil 7y ago
That's obviously the most elegant, best solution. But the time for such is long past. It's clear that humanity will not stop consuming, and expecting endless growth. At least for a few generations. In the short term, we need any win we can get, even if there are risks.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  >> It's clear that humanity will not stop consuming What makes it clear? An abundance of incentives to consume it (availability, price, taste), and no disincentives to not?
rubber_duck 7y ago
Restoring what system - nature is not some harmonious place where everything just works and people came and ruined it - there were plenty of extinction events prior to humans, evolution can lead to dead ends and get stuck at local minima. It doesn't optimize for a lot and collects garbage allong the way (eg. eye optic nerve blind spot) Man made climate change is showing us how vulnerable we are to changes in the Earth ecosystem - instead of putting our heads in the sand and hoping everything goes back to the way it was while we pray to the weather gods we could actually figure out ways to engineer our environment and become more resilient to such changes. If we are so sensitive to climate change what would happen in another Chicxulub impactor scenario - another global extinction ? Not to mention much more probable global disasters like disease outbreaks.
- neuronic 7y ago
  His point still stands. You cannot just hope to disturb a complex system and expect a linear outcome.
  - abraae 7y ago
    You also can't choose inaction over at least attempting to get things back to a known stable state by reversing the base factors (greenhouse gas concentrations).
52-6F-62 7y ago
I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be—not universally, anyway. Diet and nutrition are also complex systems—moreso for some of us in the population. I've written this out a number of times before so I'm just going to link my last comment on the subject. I feel the need to speak up for people with similar conditions for whom simply cutting out a crucial part of our diet is not resolved. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20635612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20635612
- blue_devil 7y ago
  Point taken. But obviously these companies are looking to serve the market at large, not niche populations; millions of people consuming beef regularly (average American 83 kg/yr, average German 57 kg/yr etc), not to speak of the meat that is thrown away every day. Such solution perpetuate a mindset where instead of admitting we have crossed a line where the planet cannot sustain our beef habit, we're looking for a way to justify not weaning ourselves off it. Can anyone honestly believe that growing algae for cows won't affect the world's already disturbed ocean eco-systems?

vallode 7y ago

Personally I think this is a pessimistic point of view. The reason we think we can "solve" these issues is because we have been doing a good job of using tools to help us along the way of human history. If we do as you propose, where do we stop? What makes us think we can "solve" anything? Computing, timber, fire, clean water. The truth is that humans are a part of the eco-system, and the system will evolve with us. I support slowing down certain things, so we do not hit a dead-end, since I am vegan myself. Giving up will not solve anything, especially since we have a hell of a lot of clean up to do.

blue_devil 7y ago
Or it might be a realistic point of view. My point was not give up on _solutions_. I am saying that there are real issues to be solved - for example, we do need some way to heat homes, we do need to transport ourselves - so find sustainable solutions to those. Provably (medically), we do not _need_ to be eating 60 kg of beef per person per year. The more we tinker with the system, the higher the risk we break something else. It's an inherent property of complex _systems_ that they are complex, and well, systems. Is it worth tinkering to try to solve a popular, but not essential issue like how can we continue to grow cows for human feed?

rkul 7y ago

Your argument implies that cows who did not eat seaweed survived and therefore we see cows not eating seaweed now. Since cows cannot live underwater and seaweed does not grow outside water, these "two worlds" could not meet and the outcome of their interaction is unknown. It might work, it might not, however, evolution was not here yet.

blue_devil 7y ago
You are focusing on a mechanistic view. My general point is we do not understand these systems well enough to take the risk to solve a non-essential issue, when we have the option to eliminate the risk altogether. Let me try a metaphor: Imagine you bought a new gadget for your car - you did not use it before, you're using it now and you like it. Turns out it influences the car so that your engine would die within 5 years instead of 20 years, and that it will die spectacularly (like explode). You don't know when but you know it's practically guaranteed to happen. You don't have the option to buy a new engine in the future, and you don't know what causes the gadget to impact your engine like this - you can kind of guess, but you don't understand it completely. You know that yanking out the gadget gives you a good chance to restore your broken engine, somewhat, and reduces the risk of implosion. Do you go about tinkering with adding stuff to the gadget because you really like it and want to keep using it despite knowing the risks, or do yank out the old gadget and make your peace with the fact that it's not possible to have it with this car? Replace car with planet Earth above.

eemil 7y ago

That's obviously the most elegant, best solution. But the time for such is long past. It's clear that humanity will not stop consuming, and expecting endless growth. At least for a few generations. In the short term, we need any win we can get, even if there are risks.

blue_devil 7y ago
>> It's clear that humanity will not stop consuming What makes it clear? An abundance of incentives to consume it (availability, price, taste), and no disincentives to not?

rubber_duck 7y ago

Restoring what system - nature is not some harmonious place where everything just works and people came and ruined it - there were plenty of extinction events prior to humans, evolution can lead to dead ends and get stuck at local minima. It doesn't optimize for a lot and collects garbage allong the way (eg. eye optic nerve blind spot) Man made climate change is showing us how vulnerable we are to changes in the Earth ecosystem - instead of putting our heads in the sand and hoping everything goes back to the way it was while we pray to the weather gods we could actually figure out ways to engineer our environment and become more resilient to such changes. If we are so sensitive to climate change what would happen in another Chicxulub impactor scenario - another global extinction ? Not to mention much more probable global disasters like disease outbreaks.

neuronic 7y ago
His point still stands. You cannot just hope to disturb a complex system and expect a linear outcome.
- abraae 7y ago
  You also can't choose inaction over at least attempting to get things back to a known stable state by reversing the base factors (greenhouse gas concentrations).

52-6F-62 7y ago

I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be—not universally, anyway. Diet and nutrition are also complex systems—moreso for some of us in the population. I've written this out a number of times before so I'm just going to link my last comment on the subject. I feel the need to speak up for people with similar conditions for whom simply cutting out a crucial part of our diet is not resolved. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20635612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20635612

blue_devil 7y ago
Point taken. But obviously these companies are looking to serve the market at large, not niche populations; millions of people consuming beef regularly (average American 83 kg/yr, average German 57 kg/yr etc), not to speak of the meat that is thrown away every day. Such solution perpetuate a mindset where instead of admitting we have crossed a line where the planet cannot sustain our beef habit, we're looking for a way to justify not weaning ourselves off it. Can anyone honestly believe that growing algae for cows won't affect the world's already disturbed ocean eco-systems?