4 ms·

How so?

• cwillu 2y ago
  “These boundaries are not tipping points—it’s possible to recover from passing them” Debatable whether that is completely walking back the headline, but the headline is clearly trying to give the impression it's irreversible without actually making a claim that could thereby be defeated: “brink”, “breaching”, “boundaries” “support life” are all very suggestive of irreversible doom, and yet…
  • micromacrofoot 2y ago
    that's not really walking it back... recovery is much more difficult than not causing the problem in the first place, and because it can be reversed doesn't mean it will be
    • cwillu 2y ago
      Like I said, it's english prose and the applicability of “walking it back” is subject to debate. I'm not arguing the point, just pulling out the obvious triggering line and explaining where I think the sentiment is coming from.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • micromacrofoot 2y ago
        but why
  • gwill 2y ago
    that isn't walking back that we're on the brink of breaching the 7th boundary. it just adds more detail into what these boundaries are.
  • bbor 2y ago
    Ah. I see where you’re coming from but don’t really agree - I think you’re (understandably!) bringing in that assumption yourself from general climate worries. Countries have boundaries that you can come back from after crossing, as do people. I mean, they’re kinda describing the framework directly. How else would you phrase it? “About to cross a line indicating serious danger”? Maybe “approaching a scientific benchmark tied to catastrophic risk”?
    • cwillu 2y ago
      Like I said in another reply, the applicability of “walking it back” is certainly subject to debate. I'm not arguing the point, just pulling out the obvious triggering line and explaining where I think the sentiment is coming from.