As sad as these things are... one needs to also accept, that as capable as we are of changing our environments, from transportation, to air conditioning, we do not control all the things. We have and continue to over-fish in a lot of places, and I have deep concerns over farmed fish and the impact of less than natural foods on our own health.
A lot of the changes to the waters is well outside human control... there's a huge balance of factors at play from the earth, moon and sun. We don't control these things... and to what impact we can/do, I'm not sure that anything we might do may not have unintended consequences that are materially worse.
We can definitely do some things, but the level of internalized and externalized guilt that people in and outside these discussions seem to carry and put on others isn't at all healthy in and of itself.
Is that sharks are an ancient species and they’ve survived way warmer oceans even relatively recently.
For example the Medieval Warm Period Sargasso Sea surface temperatures were 1°C warmer than 400 years ago, and Pacific Ocean water temperatures were 0.65°C warmer than the decades before.
Sharks are an ancient division of life, roughly 440 million years old, which has survived far warmer oceans.
There are ~500 living species of shark and likely tens of thousands extinct in their lineage.
We are perpetrating a mass extinction event that incorporates not just temperatures, but ocean acidification and trophic cascade for fisheries. In mass extinctions, enough things about the ecosystem change that specialists often go extinct. Great White Sharks are a specialist species in their extreme size; Most size specialists are in a precarious local maxima that disappears too quickly to adapt if conditions change drastically.
I presume it was due to the temperature gradient being extremely low, so they could gradually adapt to the change over hundreds of years. We're pulling the handbrake in geological terms.
(that chart was made in 2016, given that we were at +1.5C last year we're outdone even the most pessimistic scenario presented on that graph by quite a bit, the line is now almost horizontal)
Body size and metabolic rate are intertwined, a factor that is especially important to understand with regard to animals that live in aquatic environments, where heat loss is related to water temperature. Payne et al. developed a method to estimate routine metabolic rate based on measures from tagged fish, and combined the estimates with published respirometry rates to create a dataset spanning the entire body size range of extant fishes. Using these data, the authors found a scaling imbalance between heat production and loss that affects especially large, mesothermic fishes in warm waters. This imbalance both explains the distribution of these fish in cooler waters and suggests a special sensitivity to warming waters. —Sacha Vignieri
---
Abstract:
Body size and temperature set metabolic rates and the pace of life, yet our understanding of the energetics of large fishes is uncertain, especially of warm-bodied mesotherms, which can heavily influence marine food webs. We developed an approach to estimate metabolic heat production in fishes, revealing how routine energy expenditure scales with size and temperature from 1-milligram larvae up to 3-tonne megaplanktivorous sharks. We found that mesotherms use approximately four times more energy than ectotherms use and identified a scaling mismatch in which rates of heat production increase faster than heat loss as body size increases, with larger fish becoming increasingly warm bodied. This scaling imbalance creates an overheating predicament for large mesotherms, helping to explain their cooler biogeographies. Contemporary mesotherms face high fuel demands and overheating risks, which is a concern given their disproportionate demise during prior climate shifts.
They will move to different locations like they always have been for the past 400 million years. Sharks are older than trees, they can adapt to climate change better than anything alive right now.
No, because most of the estimates are wonky as hell. For one, calories from silage don't exactly translate directly to calories humans can make use of. Second, most estimates are worst case only and ignore the fact most animals are pastured for some/all of the year on marginal land. Some animals can survive entirely on foraging and waste from agriculture (pigs are a great example).
On the other side, not all climates can produce all the plants required for a balanced vegan diet. Here in Canada, nothing grows for 6 months and what does grow is relatively limited.
The lowest energy system would likely include a reduction in animal products but not a complete elimination, while keeping transportation to a minimum.
Also, just like with energy generation, there's the game theory aspect. If you reduce emissions, will everyone cooperate? What if you suffer only to have someone else increase their emissions anyway? We see this here... We limit our fisheries to try preserve ocean fish, only for Chinese vessels to sit on the edge of our borders hoovering up all the aquatic life...
Carbon emissions from food production may go down about that much. However, those emissions are only about 30% of the total CO2 emissions humans are responsible for, if I recall correctly. So, total CO2 reduction would be about 18%.
and likely other un predictable knock on effects would reduce the benefit, like going vegan would mean more food is available overall, and population might rise in response.
That factoid always hides the real issue. The biggest reason that that factoid is true is that the 100 biggest companies includes a large amount of the fossil fuel industry, and that that industry produces most emissions in the world. A company like Saudi Aramco produce 4% of global emissions.
We need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
For full clarity, it's also not the 100 biggest corporations that produce most emissions, but the 100 biggest companies. A massive amount of the global emissions are done by state-owned companies.
> We need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
Unfortunately the United States is currently ruled by a death cult that sees any further push to renewables as capitulation to China and is dedicated to burning fossil fuels until they are fully gone.
And while this part is less explicitly stated, I'm convinced they aren't ignorant of the devastating results of this policy, they just intend to profit off it rather than mitigate the harms, thus the stated interest in taking Greenland, Canada, etc.
They know things are going to get really bad, but they also know their own wealth will at least in the short term shield them from much personal exposure to the harm that will increasingly immiserate everyone else.
That’s basically a different way of measuring the same thing. These corporations don’t just exist in a bubble, many of them are going to be behind the food production either directly or indirectly (e.g. energy companies providing fuel for machinery).
Food is responsible for about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions[1]. I agree that it’s not realistic to assume this will be solved individually, more pressure needs to be put on these large corporations from governments, but the quickest way you or I can make our own (individually small, collectively large) impact is by cutting out meat from our diet (specifically beef[2]). We are end-consumers of those 100 largest corporations one way or another.
(Not a vegetarian/vegan btw. I’m not trying to shame, I’m certainly not perfect! I just wanted to share the info that it’s not someone else’s problem. We’re all in this together)
The smaller ones are most likely less efficient (which blocked their growth). So it'd be a game of whack-a-mole where every hit makes everything worse...
We grow a lot of human-edible food for the sole purpose to feed it to livestock, who then spend most of those calories on existing and put a small portion into body mass that we eventually eat.
Sure, that stuff isn't of the same quality as food grown for human consumption, but putting livestock on a diet and diverting some of their food to human consumption would more than cover any shortfall from the missing meat
I want to ignore these articles as it is so painful to watch the beautiful clockwork of the natural world unravel. I hate facing the suffering, diminishment, and extinction of so much in the name of profiteering and ever-increasing growth.
But this is the world now, there will only be more stories like this, and so I'm not turning away from it any further. The world becomes less beautiful, less rich, less full every year.
I do volunteer, donate, and advocate and I won't use my extreme pessimism as an excuse not to engage. But in private, I mourn what is coming with little hope for substantial reduction in harm. If anything, those with power seem upset that we're not doing more to fasttrack catastrophe - if it's going to happen, may as well be the one to profit from it as much as possible before you're dead, the thinking seems to go.
It's hard when your job and even hobbies are intertwined with this destruction. I enjoy working with computers and industrial machinery - two giant sources of pollution and social disruption. I sometimes feel this existential crisis where I am part of the problem yet I have no way to escape and become filled with guilt. Yet without this technology our lives would be more difficult.
I sometimes think about a post-industrial fantasy world where technology still exists, though minimally, and carefully applied to solve real problems humanity faces instead of selling FOMO or millions of "shiny things" that wind up in land fills so you can sell the new FOMO/shinything so some numbers on a spread sheet goes up.
I agree. Like many here, my job is now in the service of an AI-first business and people are incentivized to make AI as central and routine a part of our operations as possible. AI usage is not included in corporate commitments to social responsibility or environmental stewardship are not.
All that said: you might enjoy the book Robot & Monk by Becky Chambers, if you're one to read fiction. It kind of depicts what you're describing as your fantasy.
This may upset some people, but I think you have to come up with mental demarcation for responsibility, or you’ll go nuts.
I simply cannot decide to avoid all the technology of my field because whoever designed the electrical infrastructure didn’t do it responsibly. Or because the handling of ewaste hasn’t been dealt with. Or because everyone sourced materials in unethical ways.
My responsibility for most of that kinda ends at my voting behavior or trying to make reasonable personal decisions that are well within my small sphere of influence. A problem domain that I can handle.
Anyone who watched The Good Place knows what I mean. It’s not absolution for my own behavior, it’s just not holding myself accountable for everything that everyone else does… badly.
Otherwise there’s just no sword to fall on that’s big enough to feel at peace with the world. (Think of the snails!)
what's to guilt? None of us asked to be born into this. Most of us are only on part of a bell curve and often nowhere near the top. I lived for a while with friends and their commendable eco-mindedness included ideas like not flushing the toilet when it was just piss. Meanwhile the neighbour down the street leaves their hose running while washing their car out back, while popping inside to answer their front door.
While Europe cycles, the US builds bigger and bigger cars requiring more and more fuel to push just to prop up its unimaginative auto industry. While an American drives, Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu or Donald Trump level cities of concrete that will need to be repoured one day, combined with all the wasted energy put into making the people who die in those attacks.
One cannot be responsible for this, for all these other people, there's no guilt. Just existential angst as we watch ourselves doomspiral. Whenever climate change is discussed internationally the developed world point at current carbon emissions while the developing world points at historic carbon emissions which means no agreement can be made. Those that are made are just torn up at the earliest opportunity by political opponents. Who could possibly be responsible for that?
The only hope is that this investment in energy will propel humanity to the point where it can survive the world it has ruined.
Computers are not the problem, even the big data centers. The issue is carbon in the air. Fossil fuels. And it isnt really even about driving combustion cars. It is about industrial energy production. We need to stop burning tankers of oil to create bulk electricity. Replace all the coal/oil power plants with solar/wind/nuclear and the IC cars wont matter.
First off, I'm vegetarian and generally climate-conscious. I think we humans should do what we can in order to protect our planet. I think we can do a lot to keep the planet a good place for all living beings.
But to also say something unpopular, humans are part of the natural world. So these human driven changes to nature are just 'nature changing nature'. I understand that we are potentially causing mass extinctions, but this needs to be seen as natural unless you take for granted that humans are inherently 'special' which leads to speciesism. So, this might just be the way planets with intelligent species evolve, they outcompete the others and exploit natural resources to their benefit. It might just be a biological/evolutionary law.
Also, to be fair, _most_ of life on earth will survive this. Bacteria outnumber all other class of organisms IIRC, and they are shown to survive in truly challenging conditions.
You have articulated my feelings, behavior, and outlook almost exactly. I feel so hopeless every time I read an article like this. I've joined climate activist groups and meetups, and I've donated to orgs and political candidates. But I just feel like there's so much more damage to be done before we get to substantial improvements, it's so disheartening
> I do volunteer, donate, and advocate and I won't use my extreme pessimism as an excuse not to engage.
I think it is ok to not engage. The idea that you can impact the world is largely an artifact of modernity. In reality, capital is more than happy to let you take the blame for its own suicidal tendencies.
Blaming "profiteering and ever-increasing growth" is way too easy.
Can any legislature get away with dramatically increasing taxes on meat, fish, gas, and plane tickets, just at a level high enough to account for environmental externalities? Even dictatorships couldn't get away with it because it would cause too much unrest.
Why do you think that is? Hint: taxing people buying food, which is getting worse and worse, while the top 0.01% gets more and more rich and keeps making it worse, is maybe not the solution people should embrace that you think it is...
We've always consumed and extracted until we run out, but only very recently started actually tracking it and taking any preventative measures at all. Will take yet more time to gain momentum in that direction. The consequences will be too obvious and unavoidable for the next few generations to stagnate like we have.
No, we're very resilient bastards, we're going to let the huge majority of species go extinct before we go ourselves. We're already in a mass extinction event and we're just getting started.
Serious questions, how is this destruction and not just "change?" It seems throughout time the world has experienced acute shifts, dying offs and other events. In those transition periods many animals that you know and love today finally got a shot at main character roles. Heck the reduction of o2 in the air that killed/shrunk a lot of dinosaurs is basically the opening slave for you to be able to write this Hacker News comment.
None of this is to say don't mourn or long for any of this, but the show doesnt end, the charecters just change.
There was a Norwegian TV series called Catastrophe or something to educate the whole family about how insecure and bad the future is. What to do if a Russian van keeps driving through your neighorhood. What to do in a natural catastrophe.
How nice. Us adults who have ruined the planet[1][2] and now we are lecturing the youngins about how to deal with this suckage.
With a bizarrely cherry narration. Did you know things are about to suck for you? Just your usual shameless state TV programming.
But we, with our particular national programming, are just supposed to act like we were just spoiled brats that now have to live without dessert post-dinner. The “dessert generation” indeed.
[1] Um akshually, we haven’t ruined the planet—the planet is just minerals! It doesn’t care. We are just ruining the foundation for our own comfortable exi— yeah no kidding.
Sometimes those stories try too much to impress. I recorded a documentary series "How to kill a puppy and get rich" about street dogs in Romania and the business around them, and I had to stop it after 10 seconds, not exaggerating. Folks, I want to know the mafia and story, but I can't stand to see and hear that torture...
But on the plus side a few companies increased shareholder value. Can you imagine if we had fewer products, or didn't push the human population its theoretical maximum?
Who is we? Which we opted to push the planet to carrying capacity? Is it? What is the capacity? Are the decreasing birthrates across the world really the Earth's theoretical maximum? What does it mean to have fewer products, which things precisely should we not have? Who should be in charge of setting this?
> Several large tuna species and sharks, known as “mesothermic” species for the way their bodies run hot, require more fuel to maintain their temperature and are thus confronting a “double jeopardy” of warming oceans and declining food, mainly from overfishing. As water temperatures climb, these species will be forced to relocate to cooler waters.
They are moving to cooler waters but the cooler waters won't have the food supplies they need. So it's either stay where the food is and overheat or go to cooler water and starve.
It’s a white noise so hard to notice, but our behavior is fundamentally driven by the design of our nervous system. Thus the more immediate the consequence, the better we link our behavior and can adjust. Since this is true at an individual level, the dynamic emerges from societies and populations as well, even large ones.
For example, something is red, you touch it, get burned. You won’t touch it again.
Environmental harm unfortunately is precisely the opposite. Consequences arise on a very long arc, in some cases beyond even our lifetimes. We register problems like this only intellectually, and even that becomes clouded with politics.
So the problem is kind of inevitable unfortunately.
Do you think your conclusions might be ideologically driven rather than driven by evidence in this case?
Do you think the financial incentives for broke ass scientists trying to secure rapidly dwindling scientific grants are greater than those behind the global fossil fuel industry and other industries (virtually all) that have a detrimental effect on the environment?
Really man? You think the cabal is the postdocs living on $60k a year and not the multinational corporations with a history of things like tobacco companies funding studies that prove smoking isn't bad for you and exxon funding scientists and research trying to disprove climate change?
Completely detach yourself from your belief system and political ideology, step back, and look at the facts on the ground objectively, where money and power rests, how it flows, without any concern for protecting your pre-existing belief system. Where does sense, an understanding of incentives, and probability lead you?
That you spew bullshit about something you clearly don't know anything about. You can look up the basis funding is given on. HFSP needs novel basic research methods and international collaboration. The other funding is from Irish groups that fund Irish researchers. Besides those requirements seniority of the researchers involved is one of the most important factors, thats were any bias in funding actually lies. HFSP even states that preliminary results are not needed for applicants.
Literally the article parent linked says they're still expected to go extinct but there is a "glimmer of hope." And that's supposed to be adapting nicely?
This comment makes me so, so angry. Like, shouting angry. It's a person who hasn't engaged with a topic AT ALL except to find one headline that downplays the concerns of others. It's the quintessential bad faith comment, created of willful malice or ignorance (and I don't mean that be aggressive, but descriptive).
Which is more true: are you trying to comfort yourself with this comment, or do you find those who work in the name on conservation so loathsome that you'll grasp onto anything to dismissively roll your eyes at them?
Another bad-faith contribution, a snarky comment befitting of a default subreddit. Doesn't even logically build from what I posted, nowhere have I committed the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, but you have made the leap.
And for what? Why? Ideological reasons? A sincerely held belief that the extinction probability of polar bears is dramatically overstated based on some insight that doesn't seem to broadly available?
---
EDIT: this was a poor response to a misunderstood comment
I interpreted your comment as a snarky response to me, not actually imploring others to trust those dedicated their lives to understanding the issue. Perhaps I'm too primed on this subject to assume bad-faith engagement because that's so often what I get. That's more about me than you.
Im actually a Cambrian explosion of anti-human defenses. Allergens, toxins, whatever kills them and drives them indoors, life will adapt and shepherd. Nature is no virgin goddess ravaged by evil industrial mankind - nature can be hard and fast - almost as if life depends on it.
A lot of the changes to the waters is well outside human control... there's a huge balance of factors at play from the earth, moon and sun. We don't control these things... and to what impact we can/do, I'm not sure that anything we might do may not have unintended consequences that are materially worse.
We can definitely do some things, but the level of internalized and externalized guilt that people in and outside these discussions seem to carry and put on others isn't at all healthy in and of itself.
Is that sharks are an ancient species and they’ve survived way warmer oceans even relatively recently.
For example the Medieval Warm Period Sargasso Sea surface temperatures were 1°C warmer than 400 years ago, and Pacific Ocean water temperatures were 0.65°C warmer than the decades before.
There are ~500 living species of shark and likely tens of thousands extinct in their lineage.
We are perpetrating a mass extinction event that incorporates not just temperatures, but ocean acidification and trophic cascade for fisheries. In mass extinctions, enough things about the ecosystem change that specialists often go extinct. Great White Sharks are a specialist species in their extreme size; Most size specialists are in a precarious local maxima that disappears too quickly to adapt if conditions change drastically.
For a shark lover, you should know that shark is not a species, but a taxonomy group.
From there, everything else you assume is incorrect (ie: some species of sharks have definitely gone extinct)
https://xkcd.com/1732
(that chart was made in 2016, given that we were at +1.5C last year we're outdone even the most pessimistic scenario presented on that graph by quite a bit, the line is now almost horizontal)
Reading a thermometer is not really an advanced skill.
paper link: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adt2981
---
Editor Summary:
Body size and metabolic rate are intertwined, a factor that is especially important to understand with regard to animals that live in aquatic environments, where heat loss is related to water temperature. Payne et al. developed a method to estimate routine metabolic rate based on measures from tagged fish, and combined the estimates with published respirometry rates to create a dataset spanning the entire body size range of extant fishes. Using these data, the authors found a scaling imbalance between heat production and loss that affects especially large, mesothermic fishes in warm waters. This imbalance both explains the distribution of these fish in cooler waters and suggests a special sensitivity to warming waters. —Sacha Vignieri
---
Abstract:
Body size and temperature set metabolic rates and the pace of life, yet our understanding of the energetics of large fishes is uncertain, especially of warm-bodied mesotherms, which can heavily influence marine food webs. We developed an approach to estimate metabolic heat production in fishes, revealing how routine energy expenditure scales with size and temperature from 1-milligram larvae up to 3-tonne megaplanktivorous sharks. We found that mesotherms use approximately four times more energy than ectotherms use and identified a scaling mismatch in which rates of heat production increase faster than heat loss as body size increases, with larger fish becoming increasingly warm bodied. This scaling imbalance creates an overheating predicament for large mesotherms, helping to explain their cooler biogeographies. Contemporary mesotherms face high fuel demands and overheating risks, which is a concern given their disproportionate demise during prior climate shifts.
They will move to different locations like they always have been for the past 400 million years. Sharks are older than trees, they can adapt to climate change better than anything alive right now.
- if everyone on the entire planet went 100% vegan from tomorrow, will carbon emissions really go down by 60%?
On the other side, not all climates can produce all the plants required for a balanced vegan diet. Here in Canada, nothing grows for 6 months and what does grow is relatively limited.
The lowest energy system would likely include a reduction in animal products but not a complete elimination, while keeping transportation to a minimum.
Also, just like with energy generation, there's the game theory aspect. If you reduce emissions, will everyone cooperate? What if you suffer only to have someone else increase their emissions anyway? We see this here... We limit our fisheries to try preserve ocean fish, only for Chinese vessels to sit on the edge of our borders hoovering up all the aquatic life...
We need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.
For full clarity, it's also not the 100 biggest corporations that produce most emissions, but the 100 biggest companies. A massive amount of the global emissions are done by state-owned companies.
Unfortunately the United States is currently ruled by a death cult that sees any further push to renewables as capitulation to China and is dedicated to burning fossil fuels until they are fully gone.
See, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sbvp4ULD6GI
And while this part is less explicitly stated, I'm convinced they aren't ignorant of the devastating results of this policy, they just intend to profit off it rather than mitigate the harms, thus the stated interest in taking Greenland, Canada, etc.
They know things are going to get really bad, but they also know their own wealth will at least in the short term shield them from much personal exposure to the harm that will increasingly immiserate everyone else.
Food is responsible for about a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions[1]. I agree that it’s not realistic to assume this will be solved individually, more pressure needs to be put on these large corporations from governments, but the quickest way you or I can make our own (individually small, collectively large) impact is by cutting out meat from our diet (specifically beef[2]). We are end-consumers of those 100 largest corporations one way or another.
(Not a vegetarian/vegan btw. I’m not trying to shame, I’m certainly not perfect! I just wanted to share the info that it’s not someone else’s problem. We’re all in this together)
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-ghg-emissions [2] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/food-footprints?Commodi...
long term with a proper transition, probably not 60% but likely some lower double-digit percentage (maybe closer to 20?)
Sure, that stuff isn't of the same quality as food grown for human consumption, but putting livestock on a diet and diverting some of their food to human consumption would more than cover any shortfall from the missing meat
But this is the world now, there will only be more stories like this, and so I'm not turning away from it any further. The world becomes less beautiful, less rich, less full every year.
I do volunteer, donate, and advocate and I won't use my extreme pessimism as an excuse not to engage. But in private, I mourn what is coming with little hope for substantial reduction in harm. If anything, those with power seem upset that we're not doing more to fasttrack catastrophe - if it's going to happen, may as well be the one to profit from it as much as possible before you're dead, the thinking seems to go.
I sometimes think about a post-industrial fantasy world where technology still exists, though minimally, and carefully applied to solve real problems humanity faces instead of selling FOMO or millions of "shiny things" that wind up in land fills so you can sell the new FOMO/shinything so some numbers on a spread sheet goes up.
We got a solar array 10 years ago now. It’s small, but between 1000 to 3500 watts depending on the weather. It brings me some joy.
“Ones and zeros” by Jack Johnson is brutal lyrically. “A lot of traffic on the streets, so who's really doing all the drilling?”
It’s an unknown future and I’m glad that there are a lot thoughtful comments in this thread by people who care.
All that said: you might enjoy the book Robot & Monk by Becky Chambers, if you're one to read fiction. It kind of depicts what you're describing as your fantasy.
I simply cannot decide to avoid all the technology of my field because whoever designed the electrical infrastructure didn’t do it responsibly. Or because the handling of ewaste hasn’t been dealt with. Or because everyone sourced materials in unethical ways.
My responsibility for most of that kinda ends at my voting behavior or trying to make reasonable personal decisions that are well within my small sphere of influence. A problem domain that I can handle.
Anyone who watched The Good Place knows what I mean. It’s not absolution for my own behavior, it’s just not holding myself accountable for everything that everyone else does… badly.
Otherwise there’s just no sword to fall on that’s big enough to feel at peace with the world. (Think of the snails!)
While Europe cycles, the US builds bigger and bigger cars requiring more and more fuel to push just to prop up its unimaginative auto industry. While an American drives, Vladimir Putin or Benjamin Netanyahu or Donald Trump level cities of concrete that will need to be repoured one day, combined with all the wasted energy put into making the people who die in those attacks.
One cannot be responsible for this, for all these other people, there's no guilt. Just existential angst as we watch ourselves doomspiral. Whenever climate change is discussed internationally the developed world point at current carbon emissions while the developing world points at historic carbon emissions which means no agreement can be made. Those that are made are just torn up at the earliest opportunity by political opponents. Who could possibly be responsible for that?
The only hope is that this investment in energy will propel humanity to the point where it can survive the world it has ruined.
But to also say something unpopular, humans are part of the natural world. So these human driven changes to nature are just 'nature changing nature'. I understand that we are potentially causing mass extinctions, but this needs to be seen as natural unless you take for granted that humans are inherently 'special' which leads to speciesism. So, this might just be the way planets with intelligent species evolve, they outcompete the others and exploit natural resources to their benefit. It might just be a biological/evolutionary law.
Also, to be fair, _most_ of life on earth will survive this. Bacteria outnumber all other class of organisms IIRC, and they are shown to survive in truly challenging conditions.
I think it is ok to not engage. The idea that you can impact the world is largely an artifact of modernity. In reality, capital is more than happy to let you take the blame for its own suicidal tendencies.
There will be a shark in someones mind in a 100 years time - if its not a real one, let it be the one you shared with your mind, here and now.
Can any legislature get away with dramatically increasing taxes on meat, fish, gas, and plane tickets, just at a level high enough to account for environmental externalities? Even dictatorships couldn't get away with it because it would cause too much unrest.
They do every day, no? The issue is we prioritized profits over reason.
It's a kindergartners view on troubleshooting an unfathomably complex issue.
"Well just raise taxes and fix that!"
Natural world would be mostly fine one way or other, human beings might not survive though...
None of this is to say don't mourn or long for any of this, but the show doesnt end, the charecters just change.
How nice. Us adults who have ruined the planet[1][2] and now we are lecturing the youngins about how to deal with this suckage.
With a bizarrely cherry narration. Did you know things are about to suck for you? Just your usual shameless state TV programming.
But we, with our particular national programming, are just supposed to act like we were just spoiled brats that now have to live without dessert post-dinner. The “dessert generation” indeed.
[1] Um akshually, we haven’t ruined the planet—the planet is just minerals! It doesn’t care. We are just ruining the foundation for our own comfortable exi— yeah no kidding.
[2] Like with Norwegian oil/gas extraction
I don’t see a way out except for stratospheric aerosol injection.
They are moving to cooler waters but the cooler waters won't have the food supplies they need. So it's either stay where the food is and overheat or go to cooler water and starve.
For example, something is red, you touch it, get burned. You won’t touch it again.
Environmental harm unfortunately is precisely the opposite. Consequences arise on a very long arc, in some cases beyond even our lifetimes. We register problems like this only intellectually, and even that becomes clouded with politics.
So the problem is kind of inevitable unfortunately.
Do you think the financial incentives for broke ass scientists trying to secure rapidly dwindling scientific grants are greater than those behind the global fossil fuel industry and other industries (virtually all) that have a detrimental effect on the environment?
Really man? You think the cabal is the postdocs living on $60k a year and not the multinational corporations with a history of things like tobacco companies funding studies that prove smoking isn't bad for you and exxon funding scientists and research trying to disprove climate change?
Completely detach yourself from your belief system and political ideology, step back, and look at the facts on the ground objectively, where money and power rests, how it flows, without any concern for protecting your pre-existing belief system. Where does sense, an understanding of incentives, and probability lead you?
I think it is an interesting point, but its not all OK.
Which is more true: are you trying to comfort yourself with this comment, or do you find those who work in the name on conservation so loathsome that you'll grasp onto anything to dismissively roll your eyes at them?
And for what? Why? Ideological reasons? A sincerely held belief that the extinction probability of polar bears is dramatically overstated based on some insight that doesn't seem to broadly available?
---
EDIT: this was a poor response to a misunderstood comment
I interpreted your comment as a snarky response to me, not actually imploring others to trust those dedicated their lives to understanding the issue. Perhaps I'm too primed on this subject to assume bad-faith engagement because that's so often what I get. That's more about me than you.
In the article it says "does not mean that polar bears are at any less risk of extinction". Doesn't sound like 'adapting nicely' to me.