4 ms·

>Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess. You can just stop reading right ther

>Dyson believes we can just do some genetic engineering to create a new species of super-tree that can suck up the excess. You can just stop reading right there. Not only do we not have the ability to do that, even if we had such a tree, we would destroy the biosphere by cutting down all the world's trees to replace them with our magical carbon capture trees.

montalbano 7y ago
Your point about genetic engineering capability is true (source: spent two years working in an advanced plant science lab). The latter one I'm not sure about, it's complicated. The downvoting of this comment seems a little strange to me. Edit: Thanks for explaining, I get it now, I shouldn't have mentioned it anyway, I was just interested in the scientific substance of parent comment and wondered why others seemed not to be (I get it now, it wasn't the scientific aspect of the comment which was against HN guidelines).
- dang 7y ago
  I imagine it was downvoted because of "You can just stop reading right there", which is an internet trope (-> repetitive -> bad for HN) and also needlessly aggressive. The comment would be just fine without that bit—well, plus the snarky "magical". Snark is deprecated on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
  - DenisM 7y ago
    Can you add sarcasm next to snark in the guidelines? I’ve never seen sarcasm improve a conversation and it inflames passions unnecessarily. Thanks for considering this, whatever you decide.
    - dang 7y ago
      How would you define the difference?
      - DenisM 7y ago
        It’s not to signify a difference, but to expand coverage. I wouldn’t want to argue with someone saying “I was sarcastic, but not snarky”. There are many comments ending with /s to signify sarcasm or even /sarcasm or such. It’s easier to point out a transgression when the user has agreed in his mind or his words that he was in fact being sarcastic.
        dang 7y ago
        I think we'd just reply that they're close enough to count as the same thing for HN purposes. "Don't be snarky" is nice and short.
        DenisM 7y ago
        It’s not so much for you as it is for me. I often quote the rules, this would make it easier for me.
        dang 7y ago
        Ah I see. If it comes up, you can point to this subthread, or you can always ping us at hn@ycombinator.com. Thanks for quoting the rules and helping to preserve this place!
      - lonelappde 7y ago
        Sarcasm is writing the opposite of what you mean. It doesn't work in short form text (similar to Poe's Law) but people do it anyway because it works in their internal monologue that has vocal intonation. Even when it works, it's an obnoxious outburst and intellectually devoid of value. Snark is general obnoxiousness that adds no intellectual value.
- Causality1 7y ago
  It's hero worship. Dyson was an innovator and very much an outside the box thinker. He was also fond of what rationalists call "magical thinking". "What the secular faith of Dysonism offers is, first, a hypertrophied version of the technological fix, and second, the fantasy that, should the fix fail, we have someplace else to go." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/308306/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-dan...
m0zg 7y ago
Someone 100 years ago: "You can stop reading right there. We do not have the ability to breed corn with the ears the size of a man's forearm." Yet here we are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKlvxnspXs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKlvxnspXs
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  We don't have a 100 years anymore.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    None of us individually do, but I'm pretty sure there will still be 7+ billion people on this planet in year 2120. Irrespective of 2 degree rise in temperature or lack thereof.
    - asveikau 7y ago
      I'm not an expert, but I think the sea level rise is going to be quite crappy in another 30 years or so. Sounds plausible that it could lead to people being displaced and pricey waterfront properties and adjacent losing a lot of value.
    - ncmncm 7y ago
      A hundred years might enough to bring the population back up after civilization collapses. Collapse will put a damper on CO2 release, and the pulse of reforestation of formerly occupied areas would absorb a lot of the CO2 overburden. Anyway that's the optimistic view.
  - akvadrako 7y ago
    I think one of the best things the alarmists do is say we only have ten years left. When those predictions are proven wrong again and again eventually people will notice the pattern.
    - briantakita 7y ago
dh37 7y ago
To me the funny thing is that he spoke about climate scientists in their ivory towers, yet dreams up genetic engineering plans that have no basis in current reality. It's even unclear he understands realities of DNA-based terrestrial life as we know it, if you look at his writings on seeding the solar system with life. In my day we called such people "bullshit artists."

montalbano 7y ago

Your point about genetic engineering capability is true (source: spent two years working in an advanced plant science lab). The latter one I'm not sure about, it's complicated. The downvoting of this comment seems a little strange to me. Edit: Thanks for explaining, I get it now, I shouldn't have mentioned it anyway, I was just interested in the scientific substance of parent comment and wondered why others seemed not to be (I get it now, it wasn't the scientific aspect of the comment which was against HN guidelines).

dang 7y ago
I imagine it was downvoted because of "You can just stop reading right there", which is an internet trope (-> repetitive -> bad for HN) and also needlessly aggressive. The comment would be just fine without that bit—well, plus the snarky "magical". Snark is deprecated on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
- DenisM 7y ago
  Can you add sarcasm next to snark in the guidelines? I’ve never seen sarcasm improve a conversation and it inflames passions unnecessarily. Thanks for considering this, whatever you decide.
  - dang 7y ago
    How would you define the difference?
    - DenisM 7y ago
      It’s not to signify a difference, but to expand coverage. I wouldn’t want to argue with someone saying “I was sarcastic, but not snarky”. There are many comments ending with /s to signify sarcasm or even /sarcasm or such. It’s easier to point out a transgression when the user has agreed in his mind or his words that he was in fact being sarcastic.
      - dang 7y ago
        I think we'd just reply that they're close enough to count as the same thing for HN purposes. "Don't be snarky" is nice and short.
        DenisM 7y ago
        It’s not so much for you as it is for me. I often quote the rules, this would make it easier for me.
        dang 7y ago
        Ah I see. If it comes up, you can point to this subthread, or you can always ping us at hn@ycombinator.com. Thanks for quoting the rules and helping to preserve this place!
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      Sarcasm is writing the opposite of what you mean. It doesn't work in short form text (similar to Poe's Law) but people do it anyway because it works in their internal monologue that has vocal intonation. Even when it works, it's an obnoxious outburst and intellectually devoid of value. Snark is general obnoxiousness that adds no intellectual value.
Causality1 7y ago
It's hero worship. Dyson was an innovator and very much an outside the box thinker. He was also fond of what rationalists call "magical thinking". "What the secular faith of Dysonism offers is, first, a hypertrophied version of the technological fix, and second, the fantasy that, should the fix fail, we have someplace else to go." https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/308306/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-dan...

m0zg 7y ago

Someone 100 years ago: "You can stop reading right there. We do not have the ability to breed corn with the ears the size of a man's forearm." Yet here we are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKlvxnspXs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKlvxnspXs

Gibbon1 7y ago
We don't have a 100 years anymore.
- m0zg 7y ago
  None of us individually do, but I'm pretty sure there will still be 7+ billion people on this planet in year 2120. Irrespective of 2 degree rise in temperature or lack thereof.
  - asveikau 7y ago
    I'm not an expert, but I think the sea level rise is going to be quite crappy in another 30 years or so. Sounds plausible that it could lead to people being displaced and pricey waterfront properties and adjacent losing a lot of value.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    A hundred years might enough to bring the population back up after civilization collapses. Collapse will put a damper on CO2 release, and the pulse of reforestation of formerly occupied areas would absorb a lot of the CO2 overburden. Anyway that's the optimistic view.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  I think one of the best things the alarmists do is say we only have ten years left. When those predictions are proven wrong again and again eventually people will notice the pattern.
  - briantakita 7y ago

dh37 7y ago

To me the funny thing is that he spoke about climate scientists in their ivory towers, yet dreams up genetic engineering plans that have no basis in current reality. It's even unclear he understands realities of DNA-based terrestrial life as we know it, if you look at his writings on seeding the solar system with life. In my day we called such people "bullshit artists."