4 ms·

> Even worst cases of climate change and habitat destruction won't match historical mass extinction events. Probably true, but it may just be the timescale is

> Even worst cases of climate change and habitat destruction won't match historical mass extinction events. Probably true, but it may just be the timescale is different. > But there are a lot of people who are weirdly invested in humanity causing a mass extinction. Well, we are causing mass extinctions! Just because it's not as bad as the dinosaurs got it doesn't mean it's not bad. And I love the natural world, why would I be anything other than invested in this ongoing tragedy, even if the eventual ceiling of our destruction isn't quite meteor-level outcomes?

slibhb 2y ago
It depends how you define "mass extinction." That aside, ask yourself why so many people are aghast at the idea that humanity isn't causing a mass extinction. Is it really because they love nature? Does ranting about how awful humanity is help? Anyway, if you really want to conserve nature, you should be positive. Some conservation efforts have succeeded. Focus on those and build on them; don't spend time ranting about how awful humanity is. I'm not saying you're doing that, but it is common to see.
- filoeleven 2y ago
  > ask yourself why so many people are aghast at the idea that humanity isn't causing a mass extinction. For the same reason that flat-earthers aren’t taken seriously?
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  > It depends how you define "mass extinction." Okay, sure. I'll define it as species going extinct at 50x or more the typical background rate. We're somewhere in the 100-1000x space. You want to define it differently and come to a different conclusion then so be it. > why so many people are aghast at the idea that humanity isn't causing a mass extinction I'll answer for me: it's the shock and dismay that the evidence is so abundant and multifactorial as to momentarily deprive me of hope that we'll take action on a timescale that prevents such destruction. > Anyway, if you really want to conserve nature, you should be positive. No, I (and you) should be active. I don't have to plaster a smile on my face as the ocean warms because "some" conservation efforts have succeeded, for now, while we're still under 2 degrees warming. But I volunteer frequently, I financially support the causes I believe in, I canvass for issues and candidates that give a shit about this, and I call my representatives when I've got a specific policy or concern even if that I feel is mostly theater. > ranting Look, if someone is "ranting" about this topic while making no material change to their lives to help then fine. But this is an emotional topic for people, it gets to true passions, and ranting (anger) is one way people process grief. I used to watch monarchs by the thousands - this season I saw maybe 15. I'm grieving their loss, and will be for many years to come as the reminder of their decline seasonally returns. Maybe they'll rebound, but I wouldn't count on it. Maybe people need to rant a bit to get to a more productive place. But patronizing people with "well just stop complaining, dummy!" is as good as telling Hacker News commenters to stop fixating on the potential promise of open source software.

slibhb 2y ago

It depends how you define "mass extinction." That aside, ask yourself why so many people are aghast at the idea that humanity isn't causing a mass extinction. Is it really because they love nature? Does ranting about how awful humanity is help? Anyway, if you really want to conserve nature, you should be positive. Some conservation efforts have succeeded. Focus on those and build on them; don't spend time ranting about how awful humanity is. I'm not saying you're doing that, but it is common to see.

filoeleven 2y ago
> ask yourself why so many people are aghast at the idea that humanity isn't causing a mass extinction. For the same reason that flat-earthers aren’t taken seriously?
HelloMcFly 2y ago
> It depends how you define "mass extinction." Okay, sure. I'll define it as species going extinct at 50x or more the typical background rate. We're somewhere in the 100-1000x space. You want to define it differently and come to a different conclusion then so be it. > why so many people are aghast at the idea that humanity isn't causing a mass extinction I'll answer for me: it's the shock and dismay that the evidence is so abundant and multifactorial as to momentarily deprive me of hope that we'll take action on a timescale that prevents such destruction. > Anyway, if you really want to conserve nature, you should be positive. No, I (and you) should be active. I don't have to plaster a smile on my face as the ocean warms because "some" conservation efforts have succeeded, for now, while we're still under 2 degrees warming. But I volunteer frequently, I financially support the causes I believe in, I canvass for issues and candidates that give a shit about this, and I call my representatives when I've got a specific policy or concern even if that I feel is mostly theater. > ranting Look, if someone is "ranting" about this topic while making no material change to their lives to help then fine. But this is an emotional topic for people, it gets to true passions, and ranting (anger) is one way people process grief. I used to watch monarchs by the thousands - this season I saw maybe 15. I'm grieving their loss, and will be for many years to come as the reminder of their decline seasonally returns. Maybe they'll rebound, but I wouldn't count on it. Maybe people need to rant a bit to get to a more productive place. But patronizing people with "well just stop complaining, dummy!" is as good as telling Hacker News commenters to stop fixating on the potential promise of open source software.