6 ms·

Stuff has been injected into the atmosphere by both humans and non-human processes since the beginning. I don't think this is likely to cause irreparable damag

Stuff has been injected into the atmosphere by both humans and non-human processes since the beginning. I don't think this is likely to cause irreparable damage. What man has broken man can fix. The anti-human ideology of environmentalism needs to end or mankind probably will. The massive carbon reductions being called for won't happen once people realize the massive toll in human suffering they would cause. A pre-industrial Earth couldn't support anywhere near 8 billion humans.

soulofmischief 4y ago
> What man has broken man can fix. Citation needed, please.
- llukas 4y ago
  https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to-the-worlds-ozone-hole https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to...
  - tb_technical 4y ago
    Beat me to it lol
- tb_technical 4y ago
  The hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica? There's an example.
  - yongjik 4y ago
    That's a bold example to use, considering that humanity learned that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) created the ozone hole, so we agreed to stop use them, and then the nature recovered, without causing any noticeable hardship or economic damage. Now consider that in the context of global warming.
  - soulofmischief 4y ago
    Do you understand that one instance of this being true does absolutely nothing to validate any other instance? You need to present a large body of empirical data.
    - jabl 4y ago
      You know, playing Russian roulette is perfectly safe. I've done it multiple times[1], and look, I'm still here and well. [1] No, not really.
    - tb_technical 4y ago
      Alright then, how about leaded gasoline, uranium paint, and PFOA/PFOS? All of these chemicals were found to be terrible over time and were phased out.
      - soulofmischief 4y ago
        These examples do nothing to establish that "what man has broken, man can fix". I'm honestly appalled by the lack of scientific thinking in this thread.
        tb_technical 4y ago
        I think you're downplaying how destructive heavy metals and xenoestrogens are on the population. Widespead use of lead had horrific affects on child development - and it's even credited for being one of the factors that lead to the downfall of the Roman empire. And if we hadn't stopped using pfas as quickly as we did we would have had an even bigger fertility crisis on our hands than we currently do. We would have strode right into a Children of Men scenario. I don't understand how you can blow these examples off as a "lack of scientific thinking". The irresponsible use of chemicals (or, more charitably, unintended side effects) seriously damaged society, and collective action was taken to mitigate further damage. How is that not an example of what you were asking for?
        soulofmischief 4y ago
- dont__panic 4y ago
  Chop down a tree, plant a new one. Kill someone, have a baby. I'm not sure these are examples, or counterexamples, though...
boringg 4y ago
"What man has broken man can fix." No evidence to support such a bold and frankly uninformed claim. If we could have fixed this we would have - but right now we have so many complex systems which we only think we have some semblance of control. "The massive carbon reductions being called for won't happen once people realize the massive toll in human suffering they would cause. A pre-industrial Earth couldn't support anywhere near 8 billion humans." << -- More troll lunacy.
- tb_technical 4y ago
  > more troll lunacy The Haber-Bosch process requires nitrogen pulled from petrochemicals (there are no other large sources of nitrogen we can use at scale) to feed a large portion of the worlds population. We literally *CANNOT* go back to guano - people would starve to death. Edit: I made a grave error in the above. I misremembered nitrogen as the scarce material in the reaction, when in fact it's hydrogen. We get hydrogen from hydrocarbons that we then use for synthesizing fertilizer. I'm going to leave the above error so future humans can laugh at my idiocy.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - bittercynic 4y ago
    "The Haber process consumes 3–5% of the world's natural-gas production (around 1–2% of the world's energy supply)"[1] Seems like we could cut out most fossil-fuel consumption without making any sacrifice on this front. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_env...
    - tb_technical 4y ago
  - kortex 4y ago
    Even if we don't figure out green hydrogen for some time, I'd be okay with diverting some amount of fossil fuel consumption to essential chemical processes, like Haber-Bosh ammonia and plastics, while cutting drastically the systems that don't strictly need hydrocarbons for their purpose. Hydrocarbons are wildly useful chemical precursors, it's kind of a shame they are mostly used just for burning.
chernofool 4y ago
>What man has broken man can fix. Counterpoint: Nuclear disasters like Chernobyl. Some things just need to fix themselves over a long timescale. If we screw up badly enough, humanity won't be around to see the eventual recovery.

soulofmischief 4y ago

> What man has broken man can fix. Citation needed, please.

llukas 4y ago
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to-the-worlds-ozone-hole https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220321-what-happened-to...
- tb_technical 4y ago
  Beat me to it lol
tb_technical 4y ago
The hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica? There's an example.
- yongjik 4y ago
  That's a bold example to use, considering that humanity learned that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) created the ozone hole, so we agreed to stop use them, and then the nature recovered, without causing any noticeable hardship or economic damage. Now consider that in the context of global warming.
- soulofmischief 4y ago
  Do you understand that one instance of this being true does absolutely nothing to validate any other instance? You need to present a large body of empirical data.
  - jabl 4y ago
    You know, playing Russian roulette is perfectly safe. I've done it multiple times[1], and look, I'm still here and well. [1] No, not really.
  - tb_technical 4y ago
    Alright then, how about leaded gasoline, uranium paint, and PFOA/PFOS? All of these chemicals were found to be terrible over time and were phased out.
    - soulofmischief 4y ago
      These examples do nothing to establish that "what man has broken, man can fix". I'm honestly appalled by the lack of scientific thinking in this thread.
      - tb_technical 4y ago
        I think you're downplaying how destructive heavy metals and xenoestrogens are on the population. Widespead use of lead had horrific affects on child development - and it's even credited for being one of the factors that lead to the downfall of the Roman empire. And if we hadn't stopped using pfas as quickly as we did we would have had an even bigger fertility crisis on our hands than we currently do. We would have strode right into a Children of Men scenario. I don't understand how you can blow these examples off as a "lack of scientific thinking". The irresponsible use of chemicals (or, more charitably, unintended side effects) seriously damaged society, and collective action was taken to mitigate further damage. How is that not an example of what you were asking for?
        soulofmischief 4y ago
dont__panic 4y ago
Chop down a tree, plant a new one. Kill someone, have a baby. I'm not sure these are examples, or counterexamples, though...

boringg 4y ago

"What man has broken man can fix." No evidence to support such a bold and frankly uninformed claim. If we could have fixed this we would have - but right now we have so many complex systems which we only think we have some semblance of control. "The massive carbon reductions being called for won't happen once people realize the massive toll in human suffering they would cause. A pre-industrial Earth couldn't support anywhere near 8 billion humans." << -- More troll lunacy.

tb_technical 4y ago
> more troll lunacy The Haber-Bosch process requires nitrogen pulled from petrochemicals (there are no other large sources of nitrogen we can use at scale) to feed a large portion of the worlds population. We literally *CANNOT* go back to guano - people would starve to death. Edit: I made a grave error in the above. I misremembered nitrogen as the scarce material in the reaction, when in fact it's hydrogen. We get hydrogen from hydrocarbons that we then use for synthesizing fertilizer. I'm going to leave the above error so future humans can laugh at my idiocy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- bittercynic 4y ago
  "The Haber process consumes 3–5% of the world's natural-gas production (around 1–2% of the world's energy supply)"[1] Seems like we could cut out most fossil-fuel consumption without making any sacrifice on this front. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_env...
  - tb_technical 4y ago
- kortex 4y ago
  Even if we don't figure out green hydrogen for some time, I'd be okay with diverting some amount of fossil fuel consumption to essential chemical processes, like Haber-Bosh ammonia and plastics, while cutting drastically the systems that don't strictly need hydrocarbons for their purpose. Hydrocarbons are wildly useful chemical precursors, it's kind of a shame they are mostly used just for burning.

chernofool 4y ago

>What man has broken man can fix. Counterpoint: Nuclear disasters like Chernobyl. Some things just need to fix themselves over a long timescale. If we screw up badly enough, humanity won't be around to see the eventual recovery.