3 ms·

Why does this argument always come up? We all know the planet won't die. Humans might though. That's why we're concerned. This is always presented as some "acks

Why does this argument always come up? We all know the planet won't die. Humans might though. That's why we're concerned. This is always presented as some "ackshully" very smart argument. Yeah, it's a big fuckin rock, of course it won't die. That's not the concern.

exe34 2y ago
only poorer humans will suffer and die. the rich will be fine.
worldsayshi 2y ago
It will probably take a lot to make humans die out at this point. Humans will die, but not humanity. Technological society might collapse, although I think our adaptability will ultimately save it. And it will continue to destroy the conditions for other species to survive, as we collapse and then grow again - until we figure out how to not do that. There only one resolution to this big conundrum and that is to make technological society to not compete with the biological ecosystem of earth.
abeppu 2y ago
So what does it mean? A lead person with the project said it, and it was the only quote from that person that made it into the article. The boundaries are explicitly said to not be known tipping points, so we don't know that some new mechanisms become dominant outside of them. We're only told that leaving these bounds is "higher-risk" and that inside the bounds is some "safe zone" but the actual risk or the meaning of "safety" in this context are not communicated. This is a leading science publication reporting on an apparently notable finding about how serious the current situation is, but the actual information presented is either vague or hyperbolic. Note, I'm not saying the situation isn't serious, or that drastic action isn't warranted. I'm saying this piece, discussing this work, is at minimum sloppy and unclear, and I think this is at the level of being counter-productive. When the situation is serious, try speaking clearly rather than in shrill metaphor.
- abeppu 2y ago
  For example, if they had said, "given this trend in ocean acidification, we think the combined die-offs in coral reef ecosystems, kelp-forest areas and reduced reproduction rate of these family of plankton, the rate at which marine ecosystems sequester carbon will decrease by k% in 10 years, which would be equivalent in impact to <list of countries> abandoning their 2050 emissions targets" that would be a clear way to explain the scale of one dimension of the impact. Or "the decrease in marine biodiversity on <whatever measure> over the next decade would be equivalent to k times the losses from commercial fishing over the past decade". Or something more concrete than "we're headed to a bad state."

exe34 2y ago

only poorer humans will suffer and die. the rich will be fine.

worldsayshi 2y ago

It will probably take a lot to make humans die out at this point. Humans will die, but not humanity. Technological society might collapse, although I think our adaptability will ultimately save it. And it will continue to destroy the conditions for other species to survive, as we collapse and then grow again - until we figure out how to not do that. There only one resolution to this big conundrum and that is to make technological society to not compete with the biological ecosystem of earth.

abeppu 2y ago

So what does it mean? A lead person with the project said it, and it was the only quote from that person that made it into the article. The boundaries are explicitly said to not be known tipping points, so we don't know that some new mechanisms become dominant outside of them. We're only told that leaving these bounds is "higher-risk" and that inside the bounds is some "safe zone" but the actual risk or the meaning of "safety" in this context are not communicated. This is a leading science publication reporting on an apparently notable finding about how serious the current situation is, but the actual information presented is either vague or hyperbolic. Note, I'm not saying the situation isn't serious, or that drastic action isn't warranted. I'm saying this piece, discussing this work, is at minimum sloppy and unclear, and I think this is at the level of being counter-productive. When the situation is serious, try speaking clearly rather than in shrill metaphor.

abeppu 2y ago
For example, if they had said, "given this trend in ocean acidification, we think the combined die-offs in coral reef ecosystems, kelp-forest areas and reduced reproduction rate of these family of plankton, the rate at which marine ecosystems sequester carbon will decrease by k% in 10 years, which would be equivalent in impact to <list of countries> abandoning their 2050 emissions targets" that would be a clear way to explain the scale of one dimension of the impact. Or "the decrease in marine biodiversity on <whatever measure> over the next decade would be equivalent to k times the losses from commercial fishing over the past decade". Or something more concrete than "we're headed to a bad state."