5 ms·
> Crossing six of the nine boundaries isn’t a guarantee of disaster Then are they really boundaries? How were those boundaries chosen? Sounds like they were ch
by Jensson 3y ago
> Crossing six of the nine boundaries isn’t a guarantee of disaster
Then are they really boundaries? How were those boundaries chosen? Sounds like they were chosen to be sensationalist rather than facts.
For example, the by far biggest problem in their graph is "Genetic - Bisophere Integrity". But that doesn't seem to be a major risk today, but looking at how out of bounds that value is you'd think that we are at the brink of extinction.
- user_7832 3y agoI don't think they're sensational. They appear to be based off "these levels/values are okay, these are uncomfortable and beyond this is bad". The graph shows that in a way. But I'm not a biologist and don't know what "Genetic - Bisophere Integrity" means.
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y agoSo I studied a bit of ecology at a university level and biosphere integrity likely refers to retaining the ecological systems on the planet. For example, forests can influence the weather/climate. Deserts are growing in size, which is a terrifying prospect for farmers. When you strip off the topsoil of the meadow for farmland, you get the great dust bowl of the usa which caused mass migration and poverty. This isn’t to mean the basic “this is neat” of having so many well adapted creatures and plants of all unique shapes and sizes populating the earth in various places.
- user_7832 3y agoThanks!
- DueDilligence 3y ago[dead]
- evolve2k 3y ago> The international group of scientists that conducted the research, which draws from 2,000 studies Seems like they based it off of enough studies.
- tourmalinetaco 3y agoThere is no such thing as “enough” studies, more data is always needed to support a claim. Which is all this is, a theoretical boundary decided using studies, not some intrinsic law of reality. That’s not even going into whether those are quality studies or not.
- Nevermark 3y ago"Enough" depends on the purpose, right? Are there enough studies to credibly worry? Seems fair to say there is. Are there enough studies to stop further study? Not a chance, as you say. But the rewards are likely to be clarity of details, not reversals of concerns.
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago> Are there enough studies to credibly worry? Maybe, if the studies are accurate. And considering the recent headlines calling into question the accuracy of studies, the reality of mass-produced studies, and the general faults of the peer-reviewed system, I’m willing to say it’s a good chance most of them aren’t. Assuming, however, that they all are the most damning studies to ever grace mankind, I have no need to worry. I have only so much ability to alter the course we’ve been put on. As do most people. Until the day we eviscerate our corporate & political overlords and institute ecological safety nets, there is nothing we as a group can do to offset the damage that governments and corporations have done to the planet.
- Nevermark 3y agoSo if the studies are each compromised in various ways, carry on, no worries. If the studies are ground truth, only to be reconfirmed again and again, carry on, no worries. Well, you have a resilient plan! We do seem to be waiting for a critical mass of pain to motivate a sustained and researched response. I am having trouble visualizing what could possibly do that. Enough pain to reach the rich, presumably. Or not. I hear private jets have fabulous climate control.
- MattPalmer1086 3y agoThe article states that the boundaries reflect the values that would keep that aspect stable within pre industrial levels. Crossing a boundary means you are actively degrading that aspect and pushing it away from what would support human habitability. It is not an irretrievable or unrecoverable tipping point.