4 ms·

I find it tragic that it’s easier for scientists to perform miracles than it is for humanity to care for the planet. I understand the issue is complex, fraught

I find it tragic that it’s easier for scientists to perform miracles than it is for humanity to care for the planet. I understand the issue is complex, fraught with incentive, and has disparity between the developed and undeveloped world. But if the outcome is a clear collective benefit, why don’t we do it? More practically. What will it take to create a world where humanity can align to help ourselves?

slibhb 2y ago
Scientists "performing miracles" is humanity caring for the planet. Ask yourself why you (apparently) prefer degrowth to this.
- uulu 2y ago
  > Scientists "performing miracles" is humanity caring for the planet. Scientists "performing miracles" is one of the ways humanity is caring for the planet.
- michaelteter 2y ago
  Scientists have been doing things (with good intentions) which initially look like great ideas but ultimately cause new/greater problems in the future for ages. To f with nature and believe the full impact is understood in advance is human hubris.
- simianparrot 2y ago
  Depends. Do we know the ecosystem impact of corals that are more heat tolerant? Do we understand the evolutionary biological reasons why they aren't? Maybe it's not a problem, or maybe it is, like with so many other things we've messed with in the name of acceptable science (at the time) until we realize ecosystems are not that simple to model. I'm not saying we shouldn't do research like this. But it is not an automatic good, and it must go hand in hand with proper biological field work looked at from an evolutionary lens. Or we risk making things worse with our good intentions.
  - ASalazarMX 2y ago
    I'd prefer if we didn't tamper with ecosystems, but the reality is that our current civilization doesn't have the incentives to stop global warming (even less revert it) without major catastrophes that allow some politics and business leaders to appear as saviors instead of traitors. We don't know the future impact of these modified corals, but we know it will be catastrophic if they disappear. IMO it would be worse to let the corals simply die.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Scientists performing miracles is caring for the planet in the same way doctors providing saline is caring for blood loss. It's important, it helps, and I'm glad we're doing it, but sometimes you gotta address the bleeding first.
- xracy 2y ago
  Feels like a convenient way for you to give up your own responsibility to the planet to justify not changing your impact. I'm not saying this is you alone. We all do this, but this comment is particularly egregious for it.
- joshtbradley 2y ago
  I'm not arguing for degrowth, nor am I discrediting the work of science. I'm observing humanity has failed to have a constructive conversation around climate change, leading to the necessity of solutions like this. I have no idea what the solution is, I've already admitted it's complex. But it's frightening that the conversation immediately devolves into assumptions about one's stance, and immediate disagreement with that stance. Even on a website like HN. That's a big problem, no?
- r00fus 2y ago
  A banal false dichotomy. Pushing for lower CO2 methods of energy generation and transport is not "degrowth".
goda90 2y ago
Lots of people care. But 1 person caring usually doesn't do much. That person might be able to make some choices that reduce their impact on the planet, but the effect is miniscule and the effort they have to put in might be immense. Asking billions of people to consciously choose a harder life to hopefully prevent an issue they might not be seeing in front of their eyes on a daily basis, is a really big ask. It needs to be top down action. Government regulation. Technological advancements. Influencial business people choosing to forgo profit for the sake of sustainability. Unfortunately only a few greedy people are necessary to derail such efforts...
- ASalazarMX 2y ago
  During COVID confinement, I was hopeful home office would stay. The vast majority of office jobs don't need people sat at a specific location, home office alone reduced the carbon footprint of every major city. A rare instance where personal change significantly benefits both the environment and our lives. I'm painfully aware that the home office is much more harder to secure than regular office, but it seems like efforts to improve it have stalled since de pandemic.
  - goda90 2y ago
    It's not really a personal choice when it's the employers that decide how many remote jobs exist though.
sangnoir 2y ago
> More practically. What will it take to create a world where humanity can align to help ourselves We can only do this if humanity disincentivize getting stuck at local maxima. Another confounding factor is how humans make decisions: the highest level decision-makers are national governments and the respective administrations typically last 5-10 years at a time.

slibhb 2y ago

Scientists "performing miracles" is humanity caring for the planet. Ask yourself why you (apparently) prefer degrowth to this.

uulu 2y ago
> Scientists "performing miracles" is humanity caring for the planet. Scientists "performing miracles" is one of the ways humanity is caring for the planet.
michaelteter 2y ago
Scientists have been doing things (with good intentions) which initially look like great ideas but ultimately cause new/greater problems in the future for ages. To f with nature and believe the full impact is understood in advance is human hubris.
simianparrot 2y ago
Depends. Do we know the ecosystem impact of corals that are more heat tolerant? Do we understand the evolutionary biological reasons why they aren't? Maybe it's not a problem, or maybe it is, like with so many other things we've messed with in the name of acceptable science (at the time) until we realize ecosystems are not that simple to model. I'm not saying we shouldn't do research like this. But it is not an automatic good, and it must go hand in hand with proper biological field work looked at from an evolutionary lens. Or we risk making things worse with our good intentions.
- ASalazarMX 2y ago
  I'd prefer if we didn't tamper with ecosystems, but the reality is that our current civilization doesn't have the incentives to stop global warming (even less revert it) without major catastrophes that allow some politics and business leaders to appear as saviors instead of traitors. We don't know the future impact of these modified corals, but we know it will be catastrophic if they disappear. IMO it would be worse to let the corals simply die.
itishappy 2y ago
Scientists performing miracles is caring for the planet in the same way doctors providing saline is caring for blood loss. It's important, it helps, and I'm glad we're doing it, but sometimes you gotta address the bleeding first.
xracy 2y ago
Feels like a convenient way for you to give up your own responsibility to the planet to justify not changing your impact. I'm not saying this is you alone. We all do this, but this comment is particularly egregious for it.
joshtbradley 2y ago
I'm not arguing for degrowth, nor am I discrediting the work of science. I'm observing humanity has failed to have a constructive conversation around climate change, leading to the necessity of solutions like this. I have no idea what the solution is, I've already admitted it's complex. But it's frightening that the conversation immediately devolves into assumptions about one's stance, and immediate disagreement with that stance. Even on a website like HN. That's a big problem, no?
r00fus 2y ago
A banal false dichotomy. Pushing for lower CO2 methods of energy generation and transport is not "degrowth".

goda90 2y ago

Lots of people care. But 1 person caring usually doesn't do much. That person might be able to make some choices that reduce their impact on the planet, but the effect is miniscule and the effort they have to put in might be immense. Asking billions of people to consciously choose a harder life to hopefully prevent an issue they might not be seeing in front of their eyes on a daily basis, is a really big ask. It needs to be top down action. Government regulation. Technological advancements. Influencial business people choosing to forgo profit for the sake of sustainability. Unfortunately only a few greedy people are necessary to derail such efforts...

ASalazarMX 2y ago
During COVID confinement, I was hopeful home office would stay. The vast majority of office jobs don't need people sat at a specific location, home office alone reduced the carbon footprint of every major city. A rare instance where personal change significantly benefits both the environment and our lives. I'm painfully aware that the home office is much more harder to secure than regular office, but it seems like efforts to improve it have stalled since de pandemic.
- goda90 2y ago
  It's not really a personal choice when it's the employers that decide how many remote jobs exist though.

sangnoir 2y ago

> More practically. What will it take to create a world where humanity can align to help ourselves We can only do this if humanity disincentivize getting stuck at local maxima. Another confounding factor is how humans make decisions: the highest level decision-makers are national governments and the respective administrations typically last 5-10 years at a time.