11 ms·

I hope this inspires our generation. I hope we remember that the way things were recently aren’t they way have to be, or the way things naturally are. We need m

I hope this inspires our generation. I hope we remember that the way things were recently aren’t they way have to be, or the way things naturally are. We need more pollution controls, clean power, and less driving. I also think we need to reduce how many people visit certain places as the harsh reality is that impact is clearly related to visits. It will mean a shared sacrifice but a healthier planet. Hopefully limits can be done in an equitable way like a lottery or apportionment somehow.

rllearneratwork 7y ago
>>"I also think we need to reduce how many people visit certain places" - Yes, please start with yourself
- Glavnokoman 7y ago
  No. That would not help. This is the case when it is better to start from the neighbor and not yourself.
  - mcnamaratw 7y ago
    Do the bears really care which person bothers them? I've lost my nose for irony at this point.
  - miscPerson 7y ago
    Authoritarians always argue that. Starting with yourself, while making a negligible impact, makes an impact that is positive (according to you) and shows your commitment to enacting that policy. Have integrity: do it first.
- munk-a 7y ago
  Sorry but "practice what you preach" isn't a valid response to talking about systemic issues.
  - jdminhbg 7y ago
    Neither is "systemic issues" a get out of jail free card for taking personal responsibility.
  - miscPerson 7y ago
    Practicing what you preach demonstrates your sincerity. Why should people believe you’re genuinely arguing that the thing is worth doing, rather than acting out selfish authoritarian impulses, if you’re not actually willing to do that thing?
- viklove 7y ago
  Never been to Yosemite, you? I would like to go one day, but I'd be happy to wait in a gov't queue to help limit human intrusion in wildlife preserves.
  - option 7y ago
    been there many times. Now only visit in winters. The solution is really simple - for a fixed supply (e.g park) the prices should just go up enough to lessen the demand
    - vlunkr 7y ago
      Except we can't really call parks "public land" if we do that. The prices are not meant to be there to make a profit.
      - option 7y ago
        invest the surplus into purchasing more land and conservation efforts.
        yoavm 7y ago
        It's also not very public if rich people can go everyday and poor people have to wait a year, isn't it?..
spking 7y ago
Me too. This is the reason I absolutely don't want to see airlines or airframe manufacturers bailed out. That industry needs to shrink. If that means fewer flights available and higher prices in the future, that's a net positive for the planet as people will have to be more selective about travel. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_ins...
- option 7y ago
  MAD, globalization and ease of travel is why WW3 is not happening. Be careful what you wish for. Scaling back civilization is not the solution. Technological progress and smart regulations are.
  - caoilte 7y ago
    Those are pretty bold claims to make without sources. Maybe less air travel would be more civilized.
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    I agree about globalization, but Climate Change is just as likely to cause the type of instability that could lead to a WW3. It will certainly lead to massive suffering regardless. Until we have carbon-free or at least greatly-carbon-reduced air travel, we need to cut back on it.
  - enchiridion 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure MAD is enough.
  - staticautomatic 7y ago
    I had no idea Thomas Friedman was a HN member!
  - devmunchies 7y ago
    > Scaling back civilization is not the solution. Technological progress and smart regulations are. Scaling back tech is definitely a solution. Especially a modern spin on "older" tech (e.g. bullet trains, passive solar heating). You speak so matter-of-factly yet there's no evidence that more "progress" is the solution, when there is no way to be sure (its a gamble), whereas its a fact that scaling back our reliance on more tech is a known solution.
MikeKusold 7y ago
National Parks are the sacrificed land that gets people interested in preserving public land. It's much easier to get national support to "Save Yellowstone" than to get people to care about saving Bridger-Teton National Forrest. However, the policies that benefit one often benefit the other. Let as many people in to Yellowstone as possible so that they can look back on that one trip through Wyoming and feel like they have a personal interest in saving our public lands.
- bkandel 7y ago
  I think it's a bit more nuanced than this -- even within the "name-brand" national parks, like Yosemite or Yellowstone, the sacrificed part has the hotels and other facilities that cater to humans, but there's still a ton of land that is actually preserved and is ecologically significant. E.g. 90% of Yosemite is preserved wilderness with much more limited access to humans than in the valley (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_National_Park#National_Park_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_National_Park#Nationa...).
pathseeker 7y ago
You do know that the bear population hasn't quadrupled in the park since the covid-19 shutdown, right? Bears don't have a gestation period of a month.
- sgustard 7y ago
  The population of my neighborhood has doubled since the shutdown as everyone's kids came back from college. No gestation involved.
  - stonemetal12 7y ago
    Where would all these bears migrate from? Most bears aren't migratory creatures. Something would have to be driving them out of there homes elsewhere, if they are actually migrating.
aklemm 7y ago
Ultimately we need fewer people in order to preserve the natural world. We can start by disincentivizing and de-emphasizing growth.
- jshevek 7y ago
  I wouldn't say we "need" it, but it sure would be helpful.
- nogabebop23 7y ago
  How come the people who propose this strategy never put up their hands volunteering to make the required sacrifices?
  - jshevek 7y ago
    >How come the people who propose this strategy never put up their hands volunteering to make the required sacrifices? I've known many environmental activists in my lifetime, and can confidently say your extreme characterization is wrong. It is common in the environmental activist subcultures in the US to choose not to have children while advocating for the reduction of population growth. It is also not uncommon to for them to live lives of severely reduced consumption of material goods, consumption of energy, and production of C02.
- jelliclesfarm 7y ago
  Starting with growth of population. Ultimately consumption is a function of population.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > Ultimately consumption is a function of population. Consumption is a function of economic policy and wealth/lifestyle. For example, we consume more oil than china but have 1 billion less people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consu... India has 1 billion more people and we pretty much consume everything more than them. The same goes for Africa. Considering that china is moving towards a consumption based economy and india/africa/ASEAN/etc are desperately trying to follow suit, we are looking to add about 5 billion people to the wealthy western lifestyle in the coming decades. It will certainly increase wealth, but can the earth sustain that many people living the "good" life?
a13n 7y ago
Wishful thinking
throwaway894345 7y ago
I'm all for pollution controls, clean power, etc, but I don't see how this is related to the article. There's no observable difference in the 'amount' or 'quality' of nature (except that it's meandering into temporarily vacant 'human spaces'), and limiting visits to these natural places will almost certainly drive down empathy and political support for nature preservation.
ip26 7y ago
Broader visitation could help significantly without needing limits (not that I oppose limits). There's a lot of focus on the 'crown jewels', Yosemite, Yellowstone, Arches, Zion, a few others. But there are a lot of really great places, much closer to home, that get passed over in our collective obsession with top ten lists.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> We need more pollution controls, clean power, and less driving. I don't know about the less driving part. Less driving implies higher density living and massive reliance on public transport. I think the higher density and massive reliance on public transport have been one of the big reasons why New York City has the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the US and a much higher mortality rate than the rest of the country. Speaking of cars, I for one have been very happy that I can go get needed supplies without having to ride a public transport system. My exposure risk with driving is basically zero no matter how far I travel, and depends only on my endpoints. However, with a public transport system, it increases with the time and number of stops since that brings me into contact with more people for longer periods who may be infected. Throughout history, high density cities have shown themselves to be magnets for plagues and pandemics. I hope people and companies learn the value of spreading out and maybe allowing workers to work remotely, instead of insisting all their workers crowd into high density, expensive cities.
- jedberg 7y ago
  I think the outbreak in NYC is somewhat cultural. There are asian cities far more dense than NYC, and have much better control of the outbreak. They also have cultural norms that include wearing masks and gloves and more hand washing after using public facilities, and fewer handshakes and touching in general.
- zip1234 7y ago
  Hong Kong and plenty of other cities have had the same exposure to the virus as NYC but have handled it better. There are plenty of places that are much nicer to live and have a medium density but are much more friendly to other ways of getting around than cars. The only options for getting around are not public transport or a car. Biking, electric scooters, and so many more.
- outworlder 7y ago
  > I think the higher density and massive reliance on public transport have been one of the big reasons why New York City has the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the US and a much higher mortality rate than the rest of the country. There is a trade-off. NYC is not a plague city, we are suffering a global pandemic. How many times have we had these? Once every few decades? So what about all the other times where things are normal? Urban sprawl is inefficient and not sustainable in a world with 8 billion people (and growing fast).

rllearneratwork 7y ago

>>"I also think we need to reduce how many people visit certain places" - Yes, please start with yourself

Glavnokoman 7y ago
No. That would not help. This is the case when it is better to start from the neighbor and not yourself.
- mcnamaratw 7y ago
  Do the bears really care which person bothers them? I've lost my nose for irony at this point.
- miscPerson 7y ago
  Authoritarians always argue that. Starting with yourself, while making a negligible impact, makes an impact that is positive (according to you) and shows your commitment to enacting that policy. Have integrity: do it first.
munk-a 7y ago
Sorry but "practice what you preach" isn't a valid response to talking about systemic issues.
- jdminhbg 7y ago
  Neither is "systemic issues" a get out of jail free card for taking personal responsibility.
- miscPerson 7y ago
  Practicing what you preach demonstrates your sincerity. Why should people believe you’re genuinely arguing that the thing is worth doing, rather than acting out selfish authoritarian impulses, if you’re not actually willing to do that thing?
viklove 7y ago
Never been to Yosemite, you? I would like to go one day, but I'd be happy to wait in a gov't queue to help limit human intrusion in wildlife preserves.
- option 7y ago
  been there many times. Now only visit in winters. The solution is really simple - for a fixed supply (e.g park) the prices should just go up enough to lessen the demand
  - vlunkr 7y ago
    Except we can't really call parks "public land" if we do that. The prices are not meant to be there to make a profit.
    - option 7y ago
      invest the surplus into purchasing more land and conservation efforts.
      - yoavm 7y ago
        It's also not very public if rich people can go everyday and poor people have to wait a year, isn't it?..

spking 7y ago

Me too. This is the reason I absolutely don't want to see airlines or airframe manufacturers bailed out. That industry needs to shrink. If that means fewer flights available and higher prices in the future, that's a net positive for the planet as people will have to be more selective about travel. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/transportation_and_global_warming/airplane_emissions/ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_ins...

option 7y ago
MAD, globalization and ease of travel is why WW3 is not happening. Be careful what you wish for. Scaling back civilization is not the solution. Technological progress and smart regulations are.
- caoilte 7y ago
  Those are pretty bold claims to make without sources. Maybe less air travel would be more civilized.
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I agree about globalization, but Climate Change is just as likely to cause the type of instability that could lead to a WW3. It will certainly lead to massive suffering regardless. Until we have carbon-free or at least greatly-carbon-reduced air travel, we need to cut back on it.
- enchiridion 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure MAD is enough.
- staticautomatic 7y ago
  I had no idea Thomas Friedman was a HN member!
- devmunchies 7y ago
  > Scaling back civilization is not the solution. Technological progress and smart regulations are. Scaling back tech is definitely a solution. Especially a modern spin on "older" tech (e.g. bullet trains, passive solar heating). You speak so matter-of-factly yet there's no evidence that more "progress" is the solution, when there is no way to be sure (its a gamble), whereas its a fact that scaling back our reliance on more tech is a known solution.

MikeKusold 7y ago

National Parks are the sacrificed land that gets people interested in preserving public land. It's much easier to get national support to "Save Yellowstone" than to get people to care about saving Bridger-Teton National Forrest. However, the policies that benefit one often benefit the other. Let as many people in to Yellowstone as possible so that they can look back on that one trip through Wyoming and feel like they have a personal interest in saving our public lands.

bkandel 7y ago
I think it's a bit more nuanced than this -- even within the "name-brand" national parks, like Yosemite or Yellowstone, the sacrificed part has the hotels and other facilities that cater to humans, but there's still a ton of land that is actually preserved and is ecologically significant. E.g. 90% of Yosemite is preserved wilderness with much more limited access to humans than in the valley (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_National_Park#National_Park_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yosemite_National_Park#Nationa...).

pathseeker 7y ago

You do know that the bear population hasn't quadrupled in the park since the covid-19 shutdown, right? Bears don't have a gestation period of a month.

sgustard 7y ago
The population of my neighborhood has doubled since the shutdown as everyone's kids came back from college. No gestation involved.
- stonemetal12 7y ago
  Where would all these bears migrate from? Most bears aren't migratory creatures. Something would have to be driving them out of there homes elsewhere, if they are actually migrating.

aklemm 7y ago

Ultimately we need fewer people in order to preserve the natural world. We can start by disincentivizing and de-emphasizing growth.

jshevek 7y ago
I wouldn't say we "need" it, but it sure would be helpful.
nogabebop23 7y ago
How come the people who propose this strategy never put up their hands volunteering to make the required sacrifices?
- jshevek 7y ago
  >How come the people who propose this strategy never put up their hands volunteering to make the required sacrifices? I've known many environmental activists in my lifetime, and can confidently say your extreme characterization is wrong. It is common in the environmental activist subcultures in the US to choose not to have children while advocating for the reduction of population growth. It is also not uncommon to for them to live lives of severely reduced consumption of material goods, consumption of energy, and production of C02.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
Starting with growth of population. Ultimately consumption is a function of population.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > Ultimately consumption is a function of population. Consumption is a function of economic policy and wealth/lifestyle. For example, we consume more oil than china but have 1 billion less people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_consu... India has 1 billion more people and we pretty much consume everything more than them. The same goes for Africa. Considering that china is moving towards a consumption based economy and india/africa/ASEAN/etc are desperately trying to follow suit, we are looking to add about 5 billion people to the wealthy western lifestyle in the coming decades. It will certainly increase wealth, but can the earth sustain that many people living the "good" life?

a13n 7y ago

Wishful thinking

throwaway894345 7y ago

I'm all for pollution controls, clean power, etc, but I don't see how this is related to the article. There's no observable difference in the 'amount' or 'quality' of nature (except that it's meandering into temporarily vacant 'human spaces'), and limiting visits to these natural places will almost certainly drive down empathy and political support for nature preservation.

ip26 7y ago

Broader visitation could help significantly without needing limits (not that I oppose limits). There's a lot of focus on the 'crown jewels', Yosemite, Yellowstone, Arches, Zion, a few others. But there are a lot of really great places, much closer to home, that get passed over in our collective obsession with top ten lists.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

> We need more pollution controls, clean power, and less driving. I don't know about the less driving part. Less driving implies higher density living and massive reliance on public transport. I think the higher density and massive reliance on public transport have been one of the big reasons why New York City has the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the US and a much higher mortality rate than the rest of the country. Speaking of cars, I for one have been very happy that I can go get needed supplies without having to ride a public transport system. My exposure risk with driving is basically zero no matter how far I travel, and depends only on my endpoints. However, with a public transport system, it increases with the time and number of stops since that brings me into contact with more people for longer periods who may be infected. Throughout history, high density cities have shown themselves to be magnets for plagues and pandemics. I hope people and companies learn the value of spreading out and maybe allowing workers to work remotely, instead of insisting all their workers crowd into high density, expensive cities.

jedberg 7y ago
I think the outbreak in NYC is somewhat cultural. There are asian cities far more dense than NYC, and have much better control of the outbreak. They also have cultural norms that include wearing masks and gloves and more hand washing after using public facilities, and fewer handshakes and touching in general.
zip1234 7y ago
Hong Kong and plenty of other cities have had the same exposure to the virus as NYC but have handled it better. There are plenty of places that are much nicer to live and have a medium density but are much more friendly to other ways of getting around than cars. The only options for getting around are not public transport or a car. Biking, electric scooters, and so many more.
outworlder 7y ago
> I think the higher density and massive reliance on public transport have been one of the big reasons why New York City has the highest number of COVID-19 cases in the US and a much higher mortality rate than the rest of the country. There is a trade-off. NYC is not a plague city, we are suffering a global pandemic. How many times have we had these? Once every few decades? So what about all the other times where things are normal? Urban sprawl is inefficient and not sustainable in a world with 8 billion people (and growing fast).