32 ms·

> people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss." Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans h

> people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss." Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. > To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The long list of impacts includes: Land clearing for farming, logging and settlement All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace. Notice: > a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity Could the anti-human, pro-population control, pro-communism spin be any more transparent? I guess they're safe, since they're the intellectuals pulling the strings. After all, if the "population" of "researchers" were controlled, who would be around to tell everyone else how to survive? It's everyone else, consuming and inequitizing, that is causing the problems and needs to be reduced and reequitized and controlled. Edit: Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes. Not big surprise. It's not necessary to promote the right side of the spectrum to get in trouble, just criticize the left side.

ealexhudson 11y ago
> But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Well, current thinking is that the dinosaurs went extinct when a meteorite hit the earth. Absent a large rock or other large-scale disaster, the rate of species disappearing really does need explanation.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  What about the other four times? Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? The climate is our fault, the species are our fault--everything is humanity's fault, clearly. I guess we should all go live on the asteroids where there's nothing but rock. But then we'd be guilty of ruining a perfectly good asteroid belt... So I guess the "greenest" solution is to load all of our consciousnesses into computers run on electricity generated by solar panels and wind power. Or maybe just solar power, in space. Surely then humans could be absolved of their guilt for ruining everything.
  - ealexhudson 11y ago
    In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your hands up and say "oh, it's possibly beyond our comprehension"? Good grief, no. We should try to comprehend everything, and human induced global warming is the best hypothesis fitting the available evidence. Of course there are other possibilities, but this is such an important question. Should we sit and wait for even more extensive proof that we're causing the problem? I guess we could go to our graves in the certain knowledge that we were right; I'd prefer the scenario where we try our best to avert the extinction of the species, even if it means being wrong a few times.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc. As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring. But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen. The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem. And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.
      - blumkvist 11y ago
        I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con. In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?
DanBC 11y ago
Do you want to know why you're getting downvotes?
- alphapapa 11y ago
  According to HN theory, your post should be downvoted. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. The downvotes are no surprise. That's what one gets for expressing an unpopular opinion. It's disappointing, though, for people to downvote instead of responding with counter-arguments. But, again, no surprise.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    I'm asking a genuine question! Do you want to know why people are downvoting you, or are you just ranting about pro-communists trying to squash your opinion? I mean, don't you think the downvotes are because you say ridiculous nonsense like HN is heavily left leaning and has enough pro-communists to down vote your posts? (Because that requires not just enough Reds to down vote but a lack of non-Reds to supply corrective upvotes).
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      If you want to tell me why you think my comment was downvoted, go ahead. If you don't, don't. I'm not going to play some kind of "If you ask me, I will tell you. Please ask me so I can tell you!" game. My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. Not necessarily pro-communist, but the left does also lean toward communist and socialist ideas. If you disagree with one of those assertions, feel free to say why. I might be wrong about HN's readership, but that is my impression.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        > My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. That is because you are so far-right. Everything looks left wing from over there, even the soft right wing that makes up most of HN.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- alphapapa 11y ago
  > I assume you’ve never studied biology? I assume you've never studied statistics? Or shouldn't you know that correlation does not equal causation? See, I can make unfounded assumptions too. > Or maybe you wouldn’t care if humans go extinct? You are full of assumptions, aren't you? It's just amazing how people think we are so powerful and can affect nature to such an extent. But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. But if the elephant seems to be tripping and there's an ant near his foot, it must be the ant's fault...
  - anon1385 11y ago
    Why do you think small things can't have large effects? I expect you were asked about your knowledge of biology (although it could have been pretty much any other science) because small things have large effects all the time and even a basic knowledge of any of those fields would provide you with plenty of examples of small things having large effects. It's quite bizarre to see somebody accusing others of logical fallacies while making such a basic logical error.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"? It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
      - anon1385 11y ago
        >Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere. >What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention. Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).
Udo 11y ago
> mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." > All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace. It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so. > Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).
- alphapapa 11y ago
  > I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not necessarily a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong). Sure it's a mix, but it seems predominantly left to me. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to prove it either way. How are my statements about extinction objectively wrong? > Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point. It would be closer to, "We have no idea whether that asteroid is going to come anywhere near us, and even if it were, it's highly unlikely we could do anything to stop it. However, devoting enough resources to mount a significant attempt to stop it would definitely harm people. So we shouldn't start doing that until it's much clearer that 1) it's going to hit us, and 2) we could stop it." > It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so. I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. At smaller scales, people are unwilling to admit certain possibilities, because doing so would harm their careers--they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil. On a larger scale, certain people want to control other people for their own gain, both in power and fortune. That is also evil. And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those in power to preserve and increase their power. CC was promoted as such a policy vehicle back in the 70s, and it's still being used for it today. Very little of the "science" is about actual facts--most of it is about politics. This undermines the search for the truth. But people who don't recognize this accept the "data" at face value. Then they advocate trying to stop climate change. But doing that would line the pockets of certain powerful, wealthy people and corporations. And it would keep certain parties and nations in positions of weakness. This is why it is ultimately about evil. If all that was being done was "gathering data," that would be fine.
whibble 11y ago
Well, if it helps, I agree with everything you said. I can't stand reddit. It's totally co-opted.

ealexhudson 11y ago

> But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Well, current thinking is that the dinosaurs went extinct when a meteorite hit the earth. Absent a large rock or other large-scale disaster, the rate of species disappearing really does need explanation.

alphapapa 11y ago
What about the other four times? Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? The climate is our fault, the species are our fault--everything is humanity's fault, clearly. I guess we should all go live on the asteroids where there's nothing but rock. But then we'd be guilty of ruining a perfectly good asteroid belt... So I guess the "greenest" solution is to load all of our consciousnesses into computers run on electricity generated by solar panels and wind power. Or maybe just solar power, in space. Surely then humans could be absolved of their guilt for ruining everything.
- ealexhudson 11y ago
  In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your hands up and say "oh, it's possibly beyond our comprehension"? Good grief, no. We should try to comprehend everything, and human induced global warming is the best hypothesis fitting the available evidence. Of course there are other possibilities, but this is such an important question. Should we sit and wait for even more extensive proof that we're causing the problem? I guess we could go to our graves in the certain knowledge that we were right; I'd prefer the scenario where we try our best to avert the extinction of the species, even if it means being wrong a few times.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc. As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring. But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen. The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem. And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.
    - blumkvist 11y ago
      I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con. In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?

DanBC 11y ago

Do you want to know why you're getting downvotes?

alphapapa 11y ago
According to HN theory, your post should be downvoted. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. The downvotes are no surprise. That's what one gets for expressing an unpopular opinion. It's disappointing, though, for people to downvote instead of responding with counter-arguments. But, again, no surprise.
- DanBC 11y ago
  I'm asking a genuine question! Do you want to know why people are downvoting you, or are you just ranting about pro-communists trying to squash your opinion? I mean, don't you think the downvotes are because you say ridiculous nonsense like HN is heavily left leaning and has enough pro-communists to down vote your posts? (Because that requires not just enough Reds to down vote but a lack of non-Reds to supply corrective upvotes).
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    If you want to tell me why you think my comment was downvoted, go ahead. If you don't, don't. I'm not going to play some kind of "If you ask me, I will tell you. Please ask me so I can tell you!" game. My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. Not necessarily pro-communist, but the left does also lean toward communist and socialist ideas. If you disagree with one of those assertions, feel free to say why. I might be wrong about HN's readership, but that is my impression.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      > My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. That is because you are so far-right. Everything looks left wing from over there, even the soft right wing that makes up most of HN.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

alphapapa 11y ago
> I assume you’ve never studied biology? I assume you've never studied statistics? Or shouldn't you know that correlation does not equal causation? See, I can make unfounded assumptions too. > Or maybe you wouldn’t care if humans go extinct? You are full of assumptions, aren't you? It's just amazing how people think we are so powerful and can affect nature to such an extent. But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. But if the elephant seems to be tripping and there's an ant near his foot, it must be the ant's fault...
- anon1385 11y ago
  Why do you think small things can't have large effects? I expect you were asked about your knowledge of biology (although it could have been pretty much any other science) because small things have large effects all the time and even a basic knowledge of any of those fields would provide you with plenty of examples of small things having large effects. It's quite bizarre to see somebody accusing others of logical fallacies while making such a basic logical error.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"? It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
    - anon1385 11y ago
      >Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere. >What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention. Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).

Udo 11y ago

> mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." > All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace. It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so. > Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).

alphapapa 11y ago
> I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not necessarily a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong). Sure it's a mix, but it seems predominantly left to me. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to prove it either way. How are my statements about extinction objectively wrong? > Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point. It would be closer to, "We have no idea whether that asteroid is going to come anywhere near us, and even if it were, it's highly unlikely we could do anything to stop it. However, devoting enough resources to mount a significant attempt to stop it would definitely harm people. So we shouldn't start doing that until it's much clearer that 1) it's going to hit us, and 2) we could stop it." > It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so. I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. At smaller scales, people are unwilling to admit certain possibilities, because doing so would harm their careers--they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil. On a larger scale, certain people want to control other people for their own gain, both in power and fortune. That is also evil. And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those in power to preserve and increase their power. CC was promoted as such a policy vehicle back in the 70s, and it's still being used for it today. Very little of the "science" is about actual facts--most of it is about politics. This undermines the search for the truth. But people who don't recognize this accept the "data" at face value. Then they advocate trying to stop climate change. But doing that would line the pockets of certain powerful, wealthy people and corporations. And it would keep certain parties and nations in positions of weakness. This is why it is ultimately about evil. If all that was being done was "gathering data," that would be fine.

whibble 11y ago

Well, if it helps, I agree with everything you said. I can't stand reddit. It's totally co-opted.