5 ms·

We live in an empty, denuded world, a faint shadow of its former self. Even "green" Ireland which sells itself as a natural place is an ecological wasteland. F

We live in an empty, denuded world, a faint shadow of its former self. Even "green" Ireland which sells itself as a natural place is an ecological wasteland. From Whittled Away, by Padraic Fogarty https://iwt.ie/product/whittled-away/ https://iwt.ie/product/whittled-away/ """ In 1623 it was reported chat Ireland was exporting 20,000 tons of pilchard annually.4 To pm this figure in perspective, it is over four times the toal landings for all species from the Irish Sea in 2014 and is exceeded today only by the individual open-water catches of mackerel. horse mackerel. and blue whiting Even if this figure is m exaggeration it gives some idea of the scale of shoals. However, It was not to last. The pilchard began its decline in the middle of the eighteenth century and by 1795 the Baltimore fishery was spoken of in the past tense. After thh, shoals of fish continued to appear, albeit intermittently. well into the nineteenth century. An appearance off Kilmore Quay in County Wexford in 1835 was the first in living memory and 'people did not know their value and there was no means of saving them and great quantities were used as manure'. In 1879 the Baltimore Company was wound up after a number of unsuccessful years and then fell into a terminal decline. The pilchards didn't disappear entirely but subsequent appearances resulted in catches being dumped or used to fertilise fields because demand was nor there to actually eat them. Today, there is no targeted fishery for pilchards and their occurrence in Irish waters is sporadic and of no commercial signifieance. """

chitowneats 4y ago
Ah yes. An empty, denuded world, with unprecedented flourishing for our friends, family, and fellow humans. This type of nostalgia for a wild world full of disease and dangerous predators fails so utterly to motivate me.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  I don’t think anyone is claiming that humans haven’t flourished. What is being lamented is that this has clearly been at the expense of other species on Earth and biodiversity and ecology seems to be quite a fair bit worse. Plastics in every source of water, rapid global warming, acidification of the ocean. There’s not a whole lot of good news about the health of the Earth ecosystem and this is a system that will take millions of years to recover (if it ever does).
  - TremendousJudge 4y ago
    >and this is a system that will take millions of years to recover (if it ever does) Like Carlin said, Earth will be fine, it's been through worse before. It's the people who are fucked.
    - chitowneats 4y ago
      A great joke. It makes a good point; almost. I'm still waiting for the doomsday that's always just around the corner. We're technologists here. Let's focus on solving problems rather than trying to turn back the clock.
      - Sebb767 4y ago
        It's not a joke. Billions of Dinosaurs, back then most of all live, have been wiped of the earth, with no human input at all. A 'healthy' earth is quite relative. It's easy to frame climate change as some hippies protesting to save some obscure insect that nobody heard of and that will just end up on the list of species to have died, which is quite full of things we human did not cause anyway. It seems a lot more urgent when you frame it as keeping our own life support system running.
        chitowneats 4y ago
        I'm agreeing with that part. The part I disagree with is that we are somehow "fucked". We have lots of smart people working on that problem. Which is why we've actually had some good climate news lately. Doomer-ish statements like, "we're fucked", are just as likely to lead to demotivation and panic as they are to helpful solutions or action. So I avoid that mindset completely. It is a funny punchline. That's why I say it's a great joke. But let's not read too much into that.
        vlovich123 4y ago
        It depends on the perspective you take. From my comfortable place here in Western society, 2C of global warming isn't going to destroy my quality of life. Goods might get more expensive, certain kinds of food products may become scarcer or disappear There might be more conflict "over there" because of water scarcity and famine. I may experience more political instability and degradation of some of the social fabric. But my day to day life probably won't change. However, if you talk about it from the perspective of the people who will actually bear the brunt of it, it's hard to see it as anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Pessimism can be as toxic as unfounded optimisim when it's not strongly rooted in the reality of the situation. And to be clear. 1.5C is baked in at this point [1][2] and I suspect 2C is too but it's failed to obtain enough scientific consensus to get political buy in (for some reason scientific consensus in this space is extremely conservative). To me a realistic evaluation is that any "good news" there is is a drop in the bucket against the tsunami headed our way. Maybe we get lucky with fusion or some other scientific breakthrough. But I've not observed a pattern for humanity getting lucky in that way. I also don't think it's demotivating to talk about it in real terms. For example, California's 2035 plan for fossil fuel cars is likely too little to late. It's better than nothing but also a lot can happen in 12 years to undermine that plan (it's also a pretty poorly thought out plan but maybe it'll work out well anyway). The US federal government is more lackadaisical about it with a plan to get to net zero by 2050. But you know what you don't hear politicians talking about? Net zero doesn't achieve any climate goals. Because we've been emitting so much CO2 for so long and will continue to do so for decades more, it's a runaway cycle. We would need to get to a substantial net negative to undo the warming that's baked in and to realistically try to avoid 2c. Lots of smart people are working on the problem. I think they've got the best sense of the urgency and import of the work and I don't think pessimism demotivates them as much as insufficient funding and legislative priorities. [1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912 > There’s “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place” today, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) insisted in a new report, despite legally binding promises made at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to prevent average temperatures rising by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-will-likely-miss-1-5-degrees-c-why-isnt-anyone-saying-so/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-will-li... > “Individually, in private, I don’t think I know of many climate scientists that think 1.5 C is possible (I could count them on a hand),” Glen Peters, a climate policy expert and research director at the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, said in an email to E&E News.
- oliveshell 4y ago
  And with your comment, we now have both unhealthy extremes represented, viewpoint-wise. We need not spend all day tearfully mourning how Earth once was, yet we also clearly shouldn't tarmac the whole thing and turn it into a Costco. It is very possible to embrace industrialized existence while acknowledging the importance of, and promoting, biodiversity.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    There may be two extremes, but that doesn't mean both of them are wrong or "unhealthy".
    - oliveshell 4y ago
      I'm sorry if I didn't communicate clearly. I think extremism is obviously very clearly unhealthy by definition. I have yet to encounter a single scenario in my entire existence wherein the fully-to-one-side-of-any-spectrum-you-might-imagine "extreme" point of view on how to solve any particular problem has been the best, most useful one (to my problem-solving brain, at least). We humans tend to do this thing where, when we're presented with evidence that a previously-held position might be wrong or harmful, our opinions massively pendulum-swing the other way and we have a hard time finding clear, nuanced middle ground. "Turns out sunlight gives you cancer, so stay indoors all the time! Avoid all sun exposure at all costs!," we say for a time. But no, it turns out that even though it is technically always doing harm to your DNA, sunlight is inescapably necessary for life and healthy immunological function. Life is complicated, and extremes are simply shit for problem-solving.
      - biomcgary 4y ago
        Are you familiar with the Overton window? According to it, you will never see successful extremes because what is considered extreme changes before the world does. I think you can find plenty of examples of historical extremism that is now normal (and "healthy").
        4y ago
- CalRobert 4y ago
  People can differ but philosophically I find it distressing if our own comfort means obliterating virtually all wilderness. More worryingly, though, we are dependent on the natural world and its diversity. And even things like "the world we have now but with less meat in our diet" or "the world we have now but it's easier to walk, cycle, or take public transportation to work" would be an enormous improvement.
- orcajerk 4y ago
  Ponder this question - if humans were removed from the Earth, would evil cease to exist?
  - stormking 4y ago
    Yes, of course, as "evil" is a concept of human thought.
Jensson 4y ago
Just look at google earth photos anywhere. Its all just large patches of farmland. Only exceptions I've found are Africa, deserts and far north/south. Pretty soon Africa will probably be all farmland as well.
- SamPatt 4y ago
  I see forests all over the world. Seriously, there are so many trees. I have no idea what you're talking about. Edit: I looked up the numbers, and one quarter of the earth's land is covered in forest. The same percentage as twenty years ago. https://ourworldindata.org/forest-area https://ourworldindata.org/forest-area
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    Yes, tree cover is doing reasonably well, thankfully! But the loss of biodiversity and wildlife that isn't trees remains a critical issue.
    - SamPatt 4y ago
      I am responding to the GP comment claiming you can only see farmland on satellite photos. That is false and only takes a few moments of investigation. People who live in cities might actually believe claims like this.
nhchris 4y ago
But remember, Malthusianism was proven wrong, because we're not starving. Nature is driven to the brink, but we're not starving, so go ahead and make yet more people.
ericmcer 4y ago
You don't need to go back to 1623. Talk to fishermen who have been working the same waters for 30 years, the decline is very apparent.
- Balero 4y ago
  I think there is use in looking much further back. If we are looking only 30 years (or even 300) we are not looking back to where the decline started, only at that recent point of the decline. The issue with this to me is setting a bad 'target' to aim for for conservation. Say 30 years ago the fishery was at 80% depleted, and today it is 95% depleted, then conservation looking only 30 years back could decide to stop (or more likely lose political will) at that 80% mark.

chitowneats 4y ago

Ah yes. An empty, denuded world, with unprecedented flourishing for our friends, family, and fellow humans. This type of nostalgia for a wild world full of disease and dangerous predators fails so utterly to motivate me.

vlovich123 4y ago
I don’t think anyone is claiming that humans haven’t flourished. What is being lamented is that this has clearly been at the expense of other species on Earth and biodiversity and ecology seems to be quite a fair bit worse. Plastics in every source of water, rapid global warming, acidification of the ocean. There’s not a whole lot of good news about the health of the Earth ecosystem and this is a system that will take millions of years to recover (if it ever does).
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  >and this is a system that will take millions of years to recover (if it ever does) Like Carlin said, Earth will be fine, it's been through worse before. It's the people who are fucked.
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    A great joke. It makes a good point; almost. I'm still waiting for the doomsday that's always just around the corner. We're technologists here. Let's focus on solving problems rather than trying to turn back the clock.
    - Sebb767 4y ago
      It's not a joke. Billions of Dinosaurs, back then most of all live, have been wiped of the earth, with no human input at all. A 'healthy' earth is quite relative. It's easy to frame climate change as some hippies protesting to save some obscure insect that nobody heard of and that will just end up on the list of species to have died, which is quite full of things we human did not cause anyway. It seems a lot more urgent when you frame it as keeping our own life support system running.
      - chitowneats 4y ago
        I'm agreeing with that part. The part I disagree with is that we are somehow "fucked". We have lots of smart people working on that problem. Which is why we've actually had some good climate news lately. Doomer-ish statements like, "we're fucked", are just as likely to lead to demotivation and panic as they are to helpful solutions or action. So I avoid that mindset completely. It is a funny punchline. That's why I say it's a great joke. But let's not read too much into that.
        vlovich123 4y ago
        It depends on the perspective you take. From my comfortable place here in Western society, 2C of global warming isn't going to destroy my quality of life. Goods might get more expensive, certain kinds of food products may become scarcer or disappear There might be more conflict "over there" because of water scarcity and famine. I may experience more political instability and degradation of some of the social fabric. But my day to day life probably won't change. However, if you talk about it from the perspective of the people who will actually bear the brunt of it, it's hard to see it as anything other than an unmitigated disaster. Pessimism can be as toxic as unfounded optimisim when it's not strongly rooted in the reality of the situation. And to be clear. 1.5C is baked in at this point [1][2] and I suspect 2C is too but it's failed to obtain enough scientific consensus to get political buy in (for some reason scientific consensus in this space is extremely conservative). To me a realistic evaluation is that any "good news" there is is a drop in the bucket against the tsunami headed our way. Maybe we get lucky with fusion or some other scientific breakthrough. But I've not observed a pattern for humanity getting lucky in that way. I also don't think it's demotivating to talk about it in real terms. For example, California's 2035 plan for fossil fuel cars is likely too little to late. It's better than nothing but also a lot can happen in 12 years to undermine that plan (it's also a pretty poorly thought out plan but maybe it'll work out well anyway). The US federal government is more lackadaisical about it with a plan to get to net zero by 2050. But you know what you don't hear politicians talking about? Net zero doesn't achieve any climate goals. Because we've been emitting so much CO2 for so long and will continue to do so for decades more, it's a runaway cycle. We would need to get to a substantial net negative to undo the warming that's baked in and to realistically try to avoid 2c. Lots of smart people are working on the problem. I think they've got the best sense of the urgency and import of the work and I don't think pessimism demotivates them as much as insufficient funding and legislative priorities. [1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912 https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912 > There’s “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place” today, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) insisted in a new report, despite legally binding promises made at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to prevent average temperatures rising by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-will-likely-miss-1-5-degrees-c-why-isnt-anyone-saying-so/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-will-li... > “Individually, in private, I don’t think I know of many climate scientists that think 1.5 C is possible (I could count them on a hand),” Glen Peters, a climate policy expert and research director at the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, said in an email to E&E News.
oliveshell 4y ago
And with your comment, we now have both unhealthy extremes represented, viewpoint-wise. We need not spend all day tearfully mourning how Earth once was, yet we also clearly shouldn't tarmac the whole thing and turn it into a Costco. It is very possible to embrace industrialized existence while acknowledging the importance of, and promoting, biodiversity.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  There may be two extremes, but that doesn't mean both of them are wrong or "unhealthy".
  - oliveshell 4y ago
    I'm sorry if I didn't communicate clearly. I think extremism is obviously very clearly unhealthy by definition. I have yet to encounter a single scenario in my entire existence wherein the fully-to-one-side-of-any-spectrum-you-might-imagine "extreme" point of view on how to solve any particular problem has been the best, most useful one (to my problem-solving brain, at least). We humans tend to do this thing where, when we're presented with evidence that a previously-held position might be wrong or harmful, our opinions massively pendulum-swing the other way and we have a hard time finding clear, nuanced middle ground. "Turns out sunlight gives you cancer, so stay indoors all the time! Avoid all sun exposure at all costs!," we say for a time. But no, it turns out that even though it is technically always doing harm to your DNA, sunlight is inescapably necessary for life and healthy immunological function. Life is complicated, and extremes are simply shit for problem-solving.
    - biomcgary 4y ago
      Are you familiar with the Overton window? According to it, you will never see successful extremes because what is considered extreme changes before the world does. I think you can find plenty of examples of historical extremism that is now normal (and "healthy").
      - 4y ago
CalRobert 4y ago
People can differ but philosophically I find it distressing if our own comfort means obliterating virtually all wilderness. More worryingly, though, we are dependent on the natural world and its diversity. And even things like "the world we have now but with less meat in our diet" or "the world we have now but it's easier to walk, cycle, or take public transportation to work" would be an enormous improvement.
orcajerk 4y ago
Ponder this question - if humans were removed from the Earth, would evil cease to exist?
- stormking 4y ago
  Yes, of course, as "evil" is a concept of human thought.

Jensson 4y ago

Just look at google earth photos anywhere. Its all just large patches of farmland. Only exceptions I've found are Africa, deserts and far north/south. Pretty soon Africa will probably be all farmland as well.

SamPatt 4y ago
I see forests all over the world. Seriously, there are so many trees. I have no idea what you're talking about. Edit: I looked up the numbers, and one quarter of the earth's land is covered in forest. The same percentage as twenty years ago. https://ourworldindata.org/forest-area https://ourworldindata.org/forest-area
- CalRobert 4y ago
  Yes, tree cover is doing reasonably well, thankfully! But the loss of biodiversity and wildlife that isn't trees remains a critical issue.
  - SamPatt 4y ago
    I am responding to the GP comment claiming you can only see farmland on satellite photos. That is false and only takes a few moments of investigation. People who live in cities might actually believe claims like this.

nhchris 4y ago

But remember, Malthusianism was proven wrong, because we're not starving. Nature is driven to the brink, but we're not starving, so go ahead and make yet more people.

ericmcer 4y ago

You don't need to go back to 1623. Talk to fishermen who have been working the same waters for 30 years, the decline is very apparent.

Balero 4y ago
I think there is use in looking much further back. If we are looking only 30 years (or even 300) we are not looking back to where the decline started, only at that recent point of the decline. The issue with this to me is setting a bad 'target' to aim for for conservation. Say 30 years ago the fishery was at 80% depleted, and today it is 95% depleted, then conservation looking only 30 years back could decide to stop (or more likely lose political will) at that 80% mark.