|
The number of wild animals on Earth has been cut in half in only 40 years. I'm having to say that sentence over and over in my head because I cannot even come close to internalizing it.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
Inglonias posted:We really need to change the title of this thread to something more general about the environment. I think that could be worth a whole thread in itself really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
mdemone posted:The number of wild animals on Earth has been cut in half in only 40 years. I'm having to say that sentence over and over in my head because I cannot even come close to internalizing it. And it's irreversible 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:And it's irreversible Only if they went extinct (which it does not sound like going by the article).
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Just replace all the vanished populations of wild animals one-for-one with gray wolves, monoculture the planet with dogs and dog variants.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:And it's irreversible We're working on that: http://longnow.org/revive/
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We're working on that: http://longnow.org/revive/ Only the cute species like pandas are marked for concervation. I believe this will also apply when choosing which species to bring back from extinction. Also, habitat destruction is virtually impossible to repair, so when I say that this extinction event and destruction of ecosystems is irreversible, I don't mean that we could possibly clone for captivity a cute animal. It's that no one is goin to clean it up and once a population of animals has been displaced or destroyed, it's very difficult to restablish it. Just look at the wolves in Yellowstone, how important they are for that place, and how many challenges they face from this one species. How many dozens of wolves live there now versus the hundreds of thousands that were there before the white man destroyed them all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Only the cute species like pandas are marked for concervation. I believe this will also apply when choosing which species to bring back from extinction. On short timescales sure, but New England has more forests than it ever has in 200+ years because we stopped cutting down the forest. There are countless examples of formerly brownfield that's been successfully remediated into ecologically viable wildland. It just takes generations to complete. The Revive and Restore project actually has "non-cuteness" based criteria that they use, the biggest one of course is: Do we have a DNA sample to use? So we can't revive a species we never knew existed. I actually think the wolves in Yellowstone are a good example of how this can work. They reintroduced 41 wolves to Yellowstone between 1995-1997 and now there are 400-450 wolves in the park ecosystem. In less than 30 years we've seen a 10x rise. So in a few (human) generations the wolves will be back to an ecologically appropriate population level. These processes are slow and many people are impatient, but they can be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:On short timescales sure, but New England has more forests than it ever has in 200+ years because we stopped cutting down the forest. There are countless examples of formerly brownfield that's been successfully remediated into ecologically viable wildland. It just takes generations to complete. United States is not the world. Sure these things can happen there, but I'm skeptical that they can occur in places like the amazon and the great barrier reef. e: this extinction is not slowing down no matter what we do. We can try to save a few pockets of pristine ecosystems and maybe bring back a few linchpin species like whales and wolves, but nature is irreversibly hosed. ee: holy gently caress don't even get me started on how polluted our oceans are white sauce fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:United States is not the world. Sure these things can happen there, but I'm skeptical that they can occur in places like the amazon and the great barrier reef. You're mistaking a statement about capacity for a statement about intent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're mistaking a statement about capacity for a statement about intent. Cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Hold up guys, New England has more forest (than it had compared to a period of maximal devastation, and there's no evidence that wildlife has rebounded in any significant way) so we're good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Hold up guys, New England has more forest (than it had compared to a period of maximal devastation, and there's no evidence that wildlife has rebounded in any significant way) so we're good. Yes, that's exactly what I said  I was pointing out that the idea that recovering ecological devastation is impossible is only true for short timescales.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
The problem is that while those areas have been reforested, the biodiversity of the area is still gone. It will never ever resemble what it once was.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Rhjamiz posted:The problem is that while those areas have been reforested, the biodiversity of the area is still gone. It will never ever resemble what it once was. But there's this one possible project which might be able to bring back a tiny tiny percentage of interesting species back from extinction!
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:But there's this one possible project which might be able to bring back a tiny tiny percentage of interesting species back from extinction! Yeah how dare we discuss the technological developments underway to counteract our bad behavior, the only useful discourse is to complain about how awful everything is because everyone doesn't agree with us. This "smugly watching the world burn" attitude is part of why climate activism is such a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
the "i hate my species" comments are pretty loving hilarious, you have to admit. pathetic, but hilarious
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yeah how dare we discuss the technological developments underway to counteract our bad behavior, the only useful discourse is to complain about how awful everything is because everyone doesn't agree with us. You think possibly cloning a dodo is a way to counteract our bad behaviour? These proposals aren't solutions. The solution is to stop capitalism, consumerism, and turn the majority of our diets into vegetarianism, but that isn't likely to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You think possibly cloning a dodo is a way to counteract our bad behaviour? The "turn back the clock and revert to a premodern state" solutions that people in this thread utter without irony also contribute to why climate activism is such a joke.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You think possibly cloning a dodo is a way to counteract our bad behaviour? Well, if we're able to bring back a few species that we over-killed, then yes we're counteracting some of our bad behavior. Hint if your "solution" is impossible then its not a solution. Also your completely wrong about those points (at least from a climate or sustainability perspectives), there are numerous proposed paths to climate goals and sustainability goals that don't require completely overturning the global economic system as a precursor. If you care about climate we don't have time for the global socialist revolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Yeah, but they're mostly about telling other people to stay in their huts, do its laughable to 70% of the world. A change does require socialist ideals, energy technology must be freely given or no one is going to give up poo poo. From the energy thread, this is definitely not happening, will not happen, so we are definitely going to burn if all these scientists are correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Femur posted:From the energy thread, this is definitely not happening, will not happen, so we are definitely going to burn if all these scientists are correct. Even if it is too late for mitigation (a topic of much debate) we still have adaptation and geo-engineering as responses. Which is what frustrates me when people make the argument that if we don't mitigate we're doomed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:You think possibly cloning a dodo is a way to counteract our bad behaviour? And don't forget about banning GMOs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And don't forget about banning GMOs. Wow, you really got him by the balls there. Fojar38 posted:The "turn back the clock and revert to a premodern state" solutions that people in this thread utter without irony also contribute to why climate activism is such a joke. Note, he didn't actually say that, but now I am curious about what solutions you would book or at least consider reasonable so we can rise this discussion above the 'HIPPIES!' bs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Even if it is too late for mitigation (a topic of much debate) we still have adaptation and geo-engineering as responses. Which is what frustrates me when people make the argument that if we don't mitigate we're doomed. Please fill us in on these totally-going-to-work geoengineering schemes. The only thing more insufferable than a Chicken Little hippy is a technofetishist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Please fill us in on these totally-going-to-work geoengineering schemes. If we get to the point that we have to try something like Iron seeding, do we know what kind of effects that could have on the oceans ecosystem? 'Cause I understand that algal blooms are often a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Note, he didn't actually say that, but now I am curious about what solutions you would book or at least consider reasonable so we can rise this discussion above the 'HIPPIES!' bs. Solution to what? I have a feeling that some people wouldn't be happy so long as land use change occurs (unless it was changing land use to parks or wildlands). Radbot posted:Please fill us in on these totally-going-to-work geoengineering schemes. First, note how you ignore the adaptation part of what I said. Second, as discussed in the IPCC AR5 reports there are two primary categories of geo-engineering: solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Geo-engineering is less about the techniques used and more about the scale of the projects.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Solution to what? I have a feeling that some people wouldn't be happy so long as land use change occurs (unless it was changing land use to parks or wildlands). I don't understand this post. Who are these people and what exactly are they unhappy about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
katlington posted:I don't understand this post. Who are these people and what exactly are they unhappy about? Yeah, also when you say 'land use change' what, exactly, do you mean, and why is it so bad? Do you think that the worlds current use of land is optimal for long term food production? I was recently in Australia and I can tell you that there's large places where that's just not true! (Also, I meant solutions to climate change).
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And don't forget about banning GMOs. What the gently caress? Are you this dense that you're trying to dredge up random poo poo from other threads for "discussion"? For the record, I think GMO's should be used as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Yeah, also when you say 'land use change' what, exactly, do you mean, and why is it so bad? Do you think that the worlds current use of land is optimal for long term food production? I was recently in Australia and I can tell you that there's large places where that's just not true! (Also, I meant solutions to climate change). Land use change is one of the largest contributors to net carbon equivalent sources as it often is a huge emitter during the land use change itself and a destruction of a sink. I still ask, solution to what? Climate change isn't something we can "solve" in any meaningful way anymore just something we have to live with, like a chronic disease. Instead we're going to have to adapt or die and as humans adapting includes changing the ecosystems around us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
I'm feeling a bit slow so bear with me. Are you trying to argue that the time to do anything to even slow climate change or even just prevent general environmental damage is past us and we should just  and put stock in geo-engineering and, uh, 'Adaption'? Business as usual with technology to the rescue?In any event that dirty word 'solutions' would involve dealing with the effects of Climate Change as best as we can so I don't really know whats not to get. Whether or not we like it might mean having to abandon large aspects of the Capitalist and Consumerist culture we have. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I'm feeling a bit slow so bear with me. Are you trying to argue that the time to do anything to even slow climate change or even just prevent general environmental damage is past us and we should just I'm arguing nothing we can do will make global warming go away. Of course mitigation is an important step, but we have to use adaptation. I also don't know why you put adaptation in scare quotes, it's one of the core pathways to reducing the negative impacts of climate change and is well adopted as a term by the IPCC. Adaptation is not business as usual. You bring up environmental destruction which is why I ask what solution are people demanding. Because the solutions to living through global warming, stopping all environmental destruction, and equtably distrubuting resources in a sustainable manner are not the same solutions. It is wrong to assume that getting rid of capitalism and consumerism has anything to do with limiting the damage of climate change, since pretty much every credible source calling for action doesnt require "destroy the world economy" as a first step. And the lack of institutional controls in the interregnum would be devastating.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm arguing nothing we can do will make global warming go away. Of course mitigation is an important step, but we have to use adaptation. I also don't know why you put adaptation in scare quotes, it's one of the core pathways to reducing the negative impacts of climate change and is well adopted as a term by the IPCC. Adaptation is not business as usual. The world economy is what got us in this mess in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Humans cause all anthropogenic environmental destruction, kill all humans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm arguing nothing we can do will make global warming go away. Of course mitigation is an important step, but we have to use adaptation. I also don't know why you put adaptation in scare quotes, it's one of the core pathways to reducing the negative impacts of climate change and is well adopted as a term by the IPCC. Adaptation is not business as usual. The thing is though when you say Adaption (sans scare quotes this time) its a term that's pretty drat vague, if you have a large population of squirrels, take away their single most important food source then the squirrels will have probably adapted to the new situation with a massive die-off in their numbers until stability re-emerges. There's lots of kinds of adaption some much worse than others, you seem to have some faith in technology to help, tell me more. I did not argue that Climate Change was something you could just magic away, but that doesn't mean that there were no solutions to mitigate damage and slow the process. I was specifically asking Fojar what he thinks should be done. And I have to fundamentally disagree with you on the last point, for one 'destroy the world economy' or more likely 'seriously damage the world economy especially the poorest, most vulnerable parts of it' might be something climate change does by itself if the worst come to the worst, second, do you really think that curbing the most rampant consumerist tendencies of the first world will cause the world economy to actually collapse? God, we have to pull back on our waste, pollution and food wastage at some point, I would assume anybody who's had the most passing interest in the environment in the last few decades would see that. Finally, call me a big fat lefty or whatever, but it would seem to me that most of our current crisis has a lot to do with unchecked Capitalism. I don't see how that system can get us out of this mire(if anything seeing the last two decades of attempts to get some kind of 'Green Capitalism' going and its pretty obvious failure says it all too me), at the very least to initiate major geo-engineering projects and force industry to comply to new or old regulations you'd have to significantly expand the state. I'll guess I'll plug Naomi Klein here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:The thing is though when you say Adaption (sans scare quotes this time) its a term that's pretty drat vague, if you have a large population of squirrels, take away their single most important food source then the squirrels will have probably adapted to the new situation with a massive die-off in their numbers until stability re-emerges. There's lots of kinds of adaption some much worse than others, you seem to have some faith in technology to help, tell me more. Well, if adaptation is vague it is because its a wide list of activities. Changing crops, building seawalls, changing water supplies, etc. There are different needs around the world and once again I'd reference the IPCC reports on detailing a better list than I can. The executive summary for the AR5 WG II report is a good starting place: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Listen, I'm not one to argue that capitalism is a good economic system for humanity or the earth. I'm just working from the realistic perspective that if you care about mitigation then global economic change can't be your solution because it would take too long for meaningful impacts. Likewise, while in a fairer world we would need socialism for adaptation to work, I see no reason that the rich countries won't just keep their capitalism and let the poor starve/drown instead. I agree that if we want billions less to starve and the world to be a better place we need socialism, I just think we can survive and continue to advance in a nasty, ugly, shameful future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:19
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, if adaptation is vague it is because its a wide list of activities. Changing crops, building seawalls, changing water supplies, etc. Feel free to point out where anyone in this thread doesn't think these should happen as well? Sorry, Climate Change is inexorably linked to our socioeconomic systems and sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to admit otherwise isn't really much of a solution either.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
down with slavery posted:Feel free to point out where anyone in this thread doesn't think these should happen as well? Sorry, Climate Change is inexorably linked to our socioeconomic systems and sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to admit otherwise isn't really much of a solution either. We don't have time to wait on changing our global socio-economic system before addressing climate change that's the problem. A lot of capitalists are actually responding to climate change and the we won't do anything towards mitigation/adaptation if we say "gently caress you, we won't work with you until you become socialist".
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 03:04 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:We don't have time to wait on changing our global socio-economic system before addressing climate change that's the problem. A lot of capitalists are actually responding to climate change and the we won't do anything towards mitigation/adaptation if we say "gently caress you, we won't work with you until you become socialist". Part of the problem though is that some capitalists have their bottom lines threatened by doing anything about climate change at all. Some industries (lumber comes to mind) have been working very closely with environmental movements and environmental scientists because if there are no trees there is no lumber industry. Having poo poo loads of trees around also helps in a lot of other ways. The issue is areas like the coal industry. Environmentally speaking we'd be way better off if we just plain quit burning coal for power but no coal burning means no coal industry and the coal industry really doesn't like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:01
|
|
