11 ms·
Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists to
by revscat 13y ago
Like many who visit HN, I am an atheist. I am coming to believe, however, that the production of CO2 is the greatest sin, in the religious sense, that exists today. It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them.
Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I am growing increasingly pessimistic that such a solution will arise. The powers that be in our world are dedicated to economics, not science, and certainly not to the environment. Their altars are derivatives and overnight lending rates, of war and spying, of realpolitik and power.
Humanity, I do not think, is likely to survive this coming apocalypse without widespread civil uprisings against the current power establishment, and with it a sea change in what is viewed as unethical or sinful: unnecessary CO2 production being viewed as the great evil that is is, an existential threat to every extant political, religious, and economic group.
Instead we have the Koch brothers, Apple vs. Google flame wars, and the expenditure of almost unbelievable energies on wars and political positioning.
It's insane. I don't think humanity will survive into the 22nd century, and it will be our own damn fault for not rising up and removing those power structures that lead us to this point.
- ridicter 13y agoIf you're looking for a direct way to get involved in addressing climate change, check out 350.org. 350 was started by Bill McKibben, the author and environmentalist who first wrote about global warming in 1989. 350 is what scientists consider the safe upper limit to CO2 PPM in the atmosphere. There are local chapters all over--I'm involved in the Portland one. I deal with the struggle you mentioned all the time. In an ideal world, I would be channelling all my energy into addressing climate change. But I have to eat, so I channel my energy into the startup world with the hope that one day I can become more deeply involved in helping solve climate change.
- zevyoura 13y agoFor reference, we are currently at approximately 394 ppm [0] [0]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
- ph0rque 13y agoHere's a way to sequester CO2 in soil, reverse desertification, and make more delicious steak, all at the same time: http://www.savoryinstitute.com/ http://www.savoryinstitute.com/
- AsymetricCom 13y agoNo, we must throw off the shekels of our oppressors, then we can talk about practical solutions.
- moocowduckquack 13y agomaybe after dinar
- ph0rque 13y agoIf there's anything left in the ruble...
- moocowduckquack 13y agois no way to livre
- rybosome 13y agoBeing franc, I disagree.
- Margaret12 13y agomy buddy's mother-in-law makes $75 every hour on the internet. She has been without a job for seven months but last month her check was $17516 just working on the internet for a few hours. useful source... http://xurl.es/w2x2a http://xurl.es/w2x2a
- tsotha 13y agoThrow off the shekels? Any shekels you want to throw off you just send my way, okay?
- mathattack 13y ago"It dwarfs all other problems -- Syria, terrorism, the NSA, class and economic disparity, all of them." I don't know enough about climate science to be fully informed about impact, but this I know... A true carbon tax would be of such enormous magnitude, that it would compare with issues like class disparity. * If the pessimists are true, the deaths involved from climate change will draw Syria plus 9/11 plus many other wars. * - On a side note, if done on a revenue neutral basis, it could be used to lower taxes for everyone, and provide relief for people who live a lower-carbon lifestyle.
- masklinn 13y agoIf the pessimists are correct, death due to climate changes will be on the scale of world wars.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- kbutler 13y agoIf the pessimists are correct, death due to climage changes will be a mass extinction like the end of the Cretaceous period.
- CamperBob2 13y agoFortunately they've never been correct in the history of recorded civilization.
- patrickg_zill 13y agoFukushima possibly contaminating the entire Pacific, making any seafood from there not able to be eaten, is not as bad as a little more CO2? By the way, not 1 word in the article, filled with all sorts of scary quotes, about diatoms and their role in CO2 sequestration.
- craigyk 13y agoFukushima hasn't released anywhere near enough radioactivity (in quantity or kind) to worry about making all seafood in the Pacific inedible.
- tsotha 13y agoIt didn't even make the seafood off the coast of Japan inedible.
- patrickg_zill 13y ago"Today only 16 types of fish are considered safe to catch here, compared with 150 types they caught before the disaster. " (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fishermen-face-new-setback-with-latest-fukushima-leak/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fish...) South Korea has banned importation of all Japanese fish from 8 prefectures in the areas near Fukushima.
- tsotha 13y agoConsidered by whom, based on what evidence?
- comicjk 13y ago> possibly Except that's not possible, even for a Chernobyl-level release of radioactive material. You might as well suggest that Chernobyl made all food from Britain to Afghanistan inedible. We can detect material from Fukushima in the Pacific, but only because we have the technology to detect radiation in infinitesimal amounts.
- YZF 13y agoAnyone else here doing Coursera's A Brief History of Humankind course? Sadly human history is that of destroying and changing the environment, unintended consequences, and constant failure to improve the human condition. I'm not sure removing the power structure will fix this, what is going to happen when those are removed? At least in some places in the world the power structures are all that stand between individuals and more destruction of the planet. A lot of us often criticise processes that occur in small companies with very smart individuals. How do we have hope for better processes in a world with billions of people if we can't even get 200 people to work? I think the core issue, as Dr. Harari put it, is that we have catapulted by an evolutionary accident to the top of the food chain but we have not had time to respond to that change. Therefore we have become the most destructive force in the history of this planet. We are an animal with better cognitive abilities. Let's hope that we can progress beyond this stage fast enough...
- jonnathanson 13y agoIn a really twisted way, that's what makes Agent Smith's speech in The Matrix so interesting. The one about how humanity is "a virus" destroying the world. At the time the movie came out, that whole spiel felt like overblown, James Bond villain-esque speechifying. These days it's almost starting to sound like a halfway reasonable analogy. While I disagree that we've failed "to improve the human condition," I do think that, as a species, we're prone to taking the short view. We do what's expedient for us, and only for us, and only in the immediate timespan. We're fantastically bad about planning for the future. Throughout history this has actually benefitted us somehow; being creatures of convenience, fear, etc., has forced us to innovate. Now it's a question of whether we can innovate more quickly than we can fuck things up. "We are an animal with better cognitive abilities. Let's hope that we can progress beyond this stage fast enough..." I'm strangely optimistic. Not happy about the current situation, and pessimistic about the environment over the next 50-100 years. But I have hope that we'll figure this out. In a weird way, I have hope that this will finally be the undeniable, forced confrontation with our waste and excesses that will demand global cooperation and an end to petty, short-term bullshit. A big step forward for our species, forced upon us when our back's against the wall.
- JonFish85 13y ago> I don't think humanity will survive into the 22nd century Well that's a dumb thing to say. Have you been going to barbecues with Harold Camping? It'll be a different place in 87 years, sure. But humanity will be doing just fine, unless some whackjob launches off some nuclear weapons.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- revscat 13y agoI don't know who that is. Insofar as humanity's long-term survival goes, though, no I do not think it is by any means a sure thing. The rate of CO2 emissions increases every year, parallel to the population. The "whackjobs" that are attacking are those who produce and profit from fossil fuels production and consumption. They already exist, and are not some far off, imaginary threat.
- baddox 13y agoWhere are you getting this data?
- steveplace 13y agoThe rate of change is pretty constant http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/02/1166704/-CO2-Emissions-Exponential-Growth-3-1-yr-for-2000-2012-A-Catastrophic-Rate http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/02/1166704/-CO2-Emissi...
- zevyoura 13y agoEven if nuclear winter took place, it seems unlikely to me that humanity would literally go extinct. We're an incredibly resilient species.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- lutusp 13y ago> Being technologists we tend to assume (hope?) that some solution will present itself before it is too late. I have some bad news: * The problem isn't pollution and CO2 release, at last not directly. The problem is the number of people doing the polluting and CO2 releasing. * A solution would be to have a smaller worldwide birthrate. Easy to say. * But any solution to the above point is very likely to collide with equality and fair play, as well as crashing into the "Population Paradox". * The Population Paradox goes like this -- someone delivers a reasoned appeal to have fewer children, in the name of human survival and that of the earth. It's perfectly worded, and delivered to a huge audience. * Sensitive, intelligent, compassionate listeners resolve to have fewer children. * Insensitive, unintelligent, uncompassionate listeners don't -- they will have the usual number of children. * That's the Population Paradox in a nutshell: because of evolution, over time people become less sensitive to the damage they cause. And history proves that political "solutions" aren't solutions at all, but disasters. I hate to break this to you, but the biggest obstacle to a human solution to this problem is ... humans. Or nature, if you prefer, in the guise of natural selection. EDIT: People, do try to avoid downvoting posts that are truthful but upsetting, solely on the ground that they're upsetting.
- nostromo 13y agoThis stuck with me from Marvin Minsky's TED talk: > Anyway, the question I think people should talk about -- and it's absolutely taboo -- is, how many people should there be? And I think it should be about 100 million or maybe 500 million. And then notice that a great many of these problems disappear. If you had 100 million people properly spread out, then if there's some garbage, you throw it away, preferably where you can't see it, and it will rot. Or you throw it into the ocean and some fish will benefit from it. The problem is, how many people should there be? http://www.ted.com/talks/marvin_minsky_on_health_and_the_human_mind.html http://www.ted.com/talks/marvin_minsky_on_health_and_the_hum...
- lutusp 13y ago> [Marvin Minsky:] "I think it [world population] should be about 100 million or maybe 500 million." If only people were rational. But population doesn't follow rationality, it follows the Logistic function: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_function The Logistic function's left-hand side looks as flat as it does because there are too few organisms to support a larger growth rate. The Logistic function's right-hand side looks as flat as it does because there are too many starving organisms to support a larger growth rate. Welcome to natural selection. :)
- hooande 13y agoIt's very easy to underestimate the power of human ingenuity. The things we do routinely today would seem to be beyond magic to someone who lived 100 years ago. How do you even convey the concept of "automated car" to someone who doesn't know what a car is? How would you explain the job of a "director of social media strategy" to someone who lives in 1913? My point is that the people of the 22nd century will probably be more alien to us than we are to people of the early 20th century. One innovation is all it takes to change paradigms, and those innovations are very difficult to see coming. Then something builds on top of that and something else on top of that, and next thing we know someone is getting filthy rich by removing carbon from the atmosphere using science fiction technology. I believe that your pessimism is unfounded. Human beings have a long history of rising to a challenge. Even more so when there are fantastic sums of money to be made from a global economy. The safe bet is on technology and innovation, on unexpected ideas and discoveries that change the way we understand our problems. I'll admit that the environmental situation looks grim, but take heart in the fact that help is on the way. And: HN has gotten so conspiracy crazy. For whatever Snowden did, he certainly changed the way that we view things in our corner of the internet. Privacy and liberty are genuinely important values and they should be fought for. But really, every thread? "the powers that be"? This too shall pass, I suppose.
- Retric 13y agoHorses are fairly automated when they knew where you where going. They also tended to avoid running into buildings so in some ways a car was a step backward. Also, go back 4,000 years and say I am using secret knowledge to build a 4 man horseless carriage that's 5x as fast as a horse and does not need a driver that burns oil to run and they can picture something fairly close to what a automated car can do. People had no idea how animals worked inside when they domesticated them, that in no way prevented dogs from being useful.
- wes-exp 13y agoHuman beings have a long history of rising to a challenge This is true, but let's not use our past successes as an excuse to rest on our laurels. Right now humanity is firmly on track for ecological and economic disaster, and nature doesn't give two shits about our track record. Our problems are serious, and we must attack them head-on. Not tomorrow. Now.
- baddox 13y agoI'm surprised to see such a baseless apocalyptic prophesy follow the phrase "I am an atheist."
- markost 13y agoEverybody has to worship something.
- callmeed 13y agoAs a non-atheist (christian), it's nice to have common ground on this view. It's a shame IMO that U.S. christians are so closely linked with anti-environmentalism (and the republican party, but that's for another day) but stewardship of the earth is clearly called for in both the old and new testaments.
- indefatigable 13y agoStewardship means handing it over to fascists?
- anthonyarroyo 13y agoexqueeze me?
- indefatigable 13y agoWhen someone says they have the right to dictate not only how much energy I use, but also where that energy comes from, I call it fascism.
- zeteo 13y agoYou may be too emotionally committed to listen to any skepticism, but for whatever it's worth: 1. Your language ("sin", "evil", "believe") indicates a major subjective component in what you're saying. As with everything subjective, you're probably aware that it's not provable with cold facts and logic, and it might justifiably be rejected by others' own subjectivity and take on facts. 2. A pervading feeling that the world is going to hell in a handbasket has proven seductive many times in history. Does any of this sound familiar: "[They] claim that the current society and its rulers are corrupt, unjust, or otherwise wrong. They therefore believe they will be destroyed soon by a powerful force. The harmful nature of the status quo is considered intractable without the anticipated dramatic change" Such world views have occurred often enough that there's a consecrated term for them: [1]. Sure, the different groups that held such beliefs differed from you in how they thought it would come to pass. But they differed from each other as well. 3. There's nothing necessarily theistic about millenarian beliefs. ("Official" churches have more often than not fought against them [3].) E.g. a lot of people in the 60s thought the apocalypse was due within two decades due to overpopulation. 4. Climate models have a simple, persuasive logic behind them. But that doesn't make them necessarily right. Malthusianism also had a seemingly bulletproof logic, yet the facts did not keep pace with it [4]. When the climate models turn out lacking precision [5], they also lose the force of scientific certainty. All we're left with is "the world is warming, we can't say how fast"; which is, of course, not a falsifiable belief [6]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism#Theology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism#Theology [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Reformation_and_beyond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Reformation_and_b... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager [5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/28/la-nina-behind-gentler-global-warming-study-finds/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- graeme 13y agoWhy do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere. (I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to) Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individually. We can't be certain about the future, but it seems like a fallacy to say that therefore worry is unjustified and Manichean. From my read of the evidence we've never faced a situation so objectively dire.