Distressing and revealing that Apple's WWDC gets thousands of comments, and this - which is just a little more important - gets four.
StopDisinfo910 · 14d ago
The planetary boundaries framework is not a very useful way to think about climate change.
The variables are linked. Ocean acidification is a direct result of CO2 release. Plus, everyone knows we are not a trajectory for a stable system anyway even in the best case scenario. Apart from the pleasure of publishing gloomy articles when we cross the next one, it’s entirely pointless as a tool.
It’s far better to view the issue as being about how to reach net zero as fast as possible. That puts people in the right frame of mind.
mitchbob · 14d ago
If everyone had even a rudimentary understanding of systems and perturbation, sure, but until Fox News adds them to the curriculum, I think there's value in describing the consequences of what we're doing. Oceans with almost nothing living in them but jellyfish; if images like that get people's attention and encourage reflection, I'm for it.
StopDisinfo910 · 14d ago
> Oceans with almost nothing living in them but jellyfish; if images like that get people's attention and encourage reflection, I'm for it.
But that’s not what happens. What people hear is: “It’s lost already. Look how hopeless it all is. One again, two to go.” That’s actually the top comment right here.
From that, it’s either straight denial or resignation “If it’s lost, why should I care.”
It’s far better to view things as an evolving system we keep pushing in the wrong direction but on which we have agency. That’s why I like to explain net zero because it makes it clear that to reach net zero you need every part at zero or compensated. That includes your part and every steps do matter.
Plus it nicely forces the discourse to its logical conclusion and avoids something I have seen some companies do which is limiting the debate to an arbitrary year while conveniently forgetting that things keep going after.
perrygeo · 14d ago
We're already seeing plenty of real impacts on ecosystems (skeletal dissolution, slower coral growth). On top of that, acidification has "momentum" - even if we stopped emitting carbon today (hah) the oceans would continue dropping pH for decades.
Given those two facts, I assumed we'd crossed that boundary already.
ProllyInfamous · 14d ago
This is the major plot reveal of Soylent Green (that the oceans are/were toast, unfishable for decades). I only eat a minimal amount of ocean fish because the open sea is the world's toilet of last resort.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
The variables are linked. Ocean acidification is a direct result of CO2 release. Plus, everyone knows we are not a trajectory for a stable system anyway even in the best case scenario. Apart from the pleasure of publishing gloomy articles when we cross the next one, it’s entirely pointless as a tool.
It’s far better to view the issue as being about how to reach net zero as fast as possible. That puts people in the right frame of mind.
But that’s not what happens. What people hear is: “It’s lost already. Look how hopeless it all is. One again, two to go.” That’s actually the top comment right here.
From that, it’s either straight denial or resignation “If it’s lost, why should I care.”
It’s far better to view things as an evolving system we keep pushing in the wrong direction but on which we have agency. That’s why I like to explain net zero because it makes it clear that to reach net zero you need every part at zero or compensated. That includes your part and every steps do matter.
Plus it nicely forces the discourse to its logical conclusion and avoids something I have seen some companies do which is limiting the debate to an arbitrary year while conveniently forgetting that things keep going after.
Given those two facts, I assumed we'd crossed that boundary already.