> 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.
> 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).
> 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.
> 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.
Personally, I think opinions that match ideologies you're really opposed to probably leave a bigger impression than the ones you agree with. It's easy to come to the conclusion that you're in the minority when you're really not. I believe there are a lot of social conservatives on HN, but the same people are not necessarily technologically or scientifically conservative. This doesn't fall cleanly into left and right by US standards, but I think it's a reasonable model of HN majority predisposition.
> No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point.
I thought I was taking it as literally as possible, and after reading the response I still believe I understood the core intent correctly. When you said "But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.", I got the impression that you're asserting the only reason why we correlate extinctions with human activity is because we want to blame humans.
However, what's actually going on is more a collection of thousands of observations about these events, made on a case by case basis. For example, these are observations about human settlements impacting wildlife. In another area, they might be data about the results of us restructuring local flora and fauna. Or they might be analytical results pointing to correlations between human-induced contamination of water bodies and changes in the biome that characteristically follow it. It's literally a mass of thousands of data points.
> I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. [...] they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil.
You did originally use the word evil in an entirely different context, which I was responding to.
> And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those in power to preserve and increase their power.
A lot of groups are proclaiming that the opposing organizations have money and power on their side. The environmental protection movement makes the same assertion, only about letting industry and agriculture go unchecked.
But let's move away from political formulas now. The reality of the fact is that it actually matters very little whether and how often the Anthropocene is publicly declared. We're going to continue on the path we're already on. There will be some continued wide-scale destruction, and a lot of it will not be happening in western countries. But we'll also ramp up initiatives to try and lessen our environmental impact, both to preserve biodiversity for its own sake, but also to improve our own quality of life.
You say that you believe any such efforts will harm people, but to be honest I find that line of reasoning difficult to follow, especially considering the fact that we're mortally dependent on the integrity of our biosphere and that the measures we're putting in place are generally very modest.
None of this will change because some scientists make sensationalistic claims in the media. The article we're talking about is a total yawner, to be honest. Most scientific people already know we're witnessing a huge extinction event, no matter how we actually label it. Talking about that label is the least interesting thing we can do with the observations we made.
> Personally, I think opinions that match ideologies you're really opposed to probably leave a bigger impression than the ones you agree with. It's easy to come to the conclusion that you're in the minority when you're really not.
That's a good point.
> I believe there are a lot of social conservatives on HN, but the same people are not necessarily technologically or scientifically conservative. This doesn't fall cleanly into left and right by US standards, but I think it's a reasonable model of HN majority predisposition.
I'm not sure what you mean by socially conservative vs. scientifically and technologically.
> Well, I thought I was taking it as literally as possible. When you said "But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.", I got the impression that you're asserting the only reason why we correlate extinctions with human activity is because we want to blame humans.
I think there are some people who definitely do want to blame humans, for different reasons. At the conspiratorial end of the spectrum, there's population control purposes (cf. blumkvist's comments about increasing automation). At the more personal end of the spectrum, there are things like those whose careers are already invested into declaring that humans are at fault.
So when you say "we," I think you're glossing over a significant issue, that of different groups with different motivations.
> However, what's actually going on is more a collection of thousands of observations about these events, made on a case by case basis. For example, these are observations about human settlements impacting wildlife. In another area, they might be data about the results of us restructuring local flora and fauna. Or they might be analytical results pointing to correlations between human-induced contamination of water bodies and changes in the biome that characteristically follow it. It's literally a mass of thousands of data points.
Sure, no doubt some of these researchers have compiled massive amounts of data. But even if you take their historical data at face value, it does not necessarily follow that these small-scale human impacts on the environment will cause mass extinctions. The gulf between the two is enormous.
> A lot of groups are proclaiming that the opposing organizations have money and power on their side. The environmental protection movement makes the same assertion, only about letting industry and agriculture go unchecked.
Certainly, there are huge amounts of money being spent lobbying on both sides of the issue. It's not as if one side or the other is altruistic. In fact, I think that's the point that needs to be emphasized, perhaps above all else: these are less scientific issues than social and political ones. Science is being used as a vehicle to push certain agendas. It's fine to consider the science and the potential ramifications, but we absolutely must continue examining the people and agendas that are pushing certain conclusions. If we don't, we will have the wool pulled over our eyes, and possibly lead off a cliff.
> You say that you believe any such efforts will harm people, but to be honest I find that line of reasoning difficult to follow, especially considering the fact that we're mortally dependent on the integrity of our biosphere and that the measures we're putting in place are generally very modest.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should go around killing and burning and polluting and destroying willy-nilly. I think we should be good stewards of the planet and all of its resources, both living and non-living.
But I don't think we should put "biodiversity" above human life. The policies that are often proposed would result in real harm to real people right now. And the people pushing them either don't value human life, or they value their own (and their own wealth/power) above everyone else's. And that's dangerous.
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...
> But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant.
I think this is the wrong way to look at this. It's not about "are we powerful enough" or "are we big enough" it's not about size or power.
Even very small insignificant things can and do have quite a large impact. It's more about impacting a system in a way it's ill equipped to compensate for.
One of the more recent theories of the cause of the worst extinction level event is a particular methane producing microbe. Something far less powerful than a human is, yet a potential cause of an extinction level event that dwarfed the one that killed off the dinosaurs.
Frankly, I think the earth's ecosystems are incredibly robust and able to compensate for more than we can imagine.
Regarding the "farting bacteria" theory (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist), hey, who knows, maybe that happened. But it's surely a stretch to say that it probably did. And even if it did, look at the incredible biodiversity that came to exist afterward! Why are we (or some people) so worried?
The animals that don't survive mass extinction events don't benefit from the subsequent biodiversity, that's why. I'm not of the opinion that we're facing such a dire situation as alarmists like the guy that wrote this are suggesting, but simply pointing out that it simply doesn't matter that some species will survive or that even humans will survive if the vast majority don't.
"Sure, most humans will die, but just imagine how great all the biodiversity will be after a few million years! Won't that be great!" Maybe some crazy Peta people would think that, but otherwise I think biodiversity is hardly a compelling argument for people that starve as a result of any changes to the planet.
Obviously life would survive just about damn near anything, and has in the past, but at what cost, and in what form?
The questions aren't "are humans capable of damaging the earth to the point that threatens humans ability to survive on earth" because that's definitely a yes. It's more of a question of whether we are already or not. If we purposely wanted to destroy the earth we could, for example global thermonuclear war, engineered plagues, etc. We could absolutely make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, no question there. So the whole "are we big enough" simply doesn't make sense.
So obviously some human actions can make the planet uninhabitable, so humans are capable of impacting the planet. The question therefore isn't whether humans are "big enough" but whether particular human actions are impacting the planet.
My entire point was that the line of reasoning that we're not big enough to impact the planet is nonsense since not only do smaller things than us impact the planet, but there's indisputable methods we are capable of rendering the planet uninhabitable.
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.
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.
>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).
> 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.
Cod stocks collapsed because of over fishing. They recovered when we stopped fishing.
Buffalo went near extinct when we killed most of them.
The passenger pigeon went extinct when we killed all of them.
Dodos went extinct because we killed all of them.
These are all clear and direct examples.
What you're doing is dishonest - "show me something unclear and with complex causes as an example of human destruction, and then when you do I'll quibble with the small areas of doubt provided in your example even though most of science agree the cause was human".
I'm not being dishonest. Sure, humans have caused or nearly caused a few species to become extinct in certain places.
That is a far cry from causing mass extinction on a global scale.
We have also protected and repopulated some nearly extinct species.
Equating the two--that's dishonest at worst, and a difference in judgment at best. Like I said, it's a question of judgment.
What is definitely dishonest is to claim that all sea life will die in ten years, leaving the shores covered with dead fish; or claim that the entire UK will starve to death; and then, when proven wrong by reality, say, "Well, they're having problems, aren't they? See? I wasn't really wrong."
And with such a track record, it seems ridiculous for anyone to believe him when he claims we are now causing mass extinctions on a global scale. How can you take him seriously?
> If one is happening within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution, the cause is not exactly a mystery.
Lots of things happened within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to show causation. To be clear, I believe humans have caused this problem, but how is it even possible to claim scientific knowledge of it? Where is your control experiment?
We operate on beliefs all the time. For example, the belief that science is good.
We've destroyed a lot of natural habitats, and we know that these habitats contain a great deal of biodiversity. We just don't know what would have happened if we hadn't destroyed those habitats. My guess is that we wouldn't be facing a mass extinction event, but there's no way to check.
Even if there was only a 10% chance humans were responsible, I would still rather play it safe than ignore the issue.
What if trying to stop a process--which we only have a 10% chance of stopping--would have a 100% chance of harming people? Is definitely harming people "playing it safe"?
Can you clarify what you mean by "harm"? I think it's a judgment call as to whether we should proceed with the method to stop the extinction. For example, if it means sterilizing all humans, I would say don't do it. If it means everybody has to be vegetarian, I would say do it. If it means economic harm, then it would depend on the extent and the available measures to mitigate it.
What I mean by harm is things like enacting economic policies which would do things like prevent the developing world from developing, resulting in people remaining in poverty. It's easy for healthy, happy, relatively wealthy people to say that we should cut emissions (cf. DiCaprio). But reality is that, if those people practiced what they preach, they'd be living in log cabins--without solar panels.
And I certainly take issue with your vegetarian example. What other people eat is none of your business. It sounds almost funny, but that would be food fascism--is there any other word for it? Do you really want some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk writing memos telling you what you are and are not allowed to eat? How can you think that's a good idea? The more governments try to control people, the more people are harmed. Doesn't history make this obvious? Why do people seem to think, "Yeah, but we can get it right This Time"?
Hypothetical question: an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth. You don't know for sure if it will hit, but you're pretty sure that if it does hit, it will be exceedingly bad. As the supreme authority on Earth, what resources are you willing to sacrifice to try and blow it up or divert it?
edit: Never mind, I read your answer up above. Well, anyway, a judgment call.
It sounds like a really interesting idea for a computer game: you're the president of the world, and an asteroid may or may not be going to hit the planet in so many years. Can you bring the planet's resources to bear in time to prevent it? Can you develop the technology and send the mission without bankrupting society and causing mass unrest? Can you delay that preparation and develop better technology to figure out if the asteroid will really hit?
Or do you play the villain, letting the asteroid hit, but building fallout shelters to survive with your friends while everyone else perishes? Can you do that without the populace catching on? Can you get it done in time? Can you outlast the "asteroid winter"?
Wow, that is a really cool idea! Usually I don't like political games but this seems like it could actually be fun and avoid preachiness, all while exploring the high level social planning issues.
Here's mine: We don't know for certain how big an effect we actually have. We don't know whether we are actually responsible for these events (e.g. mass extinction, climate change). But what we do know is that trying to prevent or reverse these things would definitely harm real people, right now, while making certain groups more wealthy and powerful, and keeping certain other groups poor and weak.
Therefore, we should not do what we know will certainly cause harm, unless and until we know that not doing it will certainly cause greater harm.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
>if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty.
If fossil fuels are so vital to developing countries why are you wasting them on luxury goods? Surely you should be campaigning for massive reduction in fossil fuel use in developed countries (who can afford sustainable and nuclear power generation technologies).
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?
What is so bad about it? Are you kidding me? Why don't you talk to some people in China about that, people whose children die and are denied the right to have more.
Why don't you think about corrupt, evil governments that want to keep the population a manageable size so they can remain in power and continue exploiting people.
I don't know where you are from, but where I come from, we value freedom and the right to self-determination. Trying to control other people--to prevent them from doing normal, natural things like having families--is wrong.
There is no shortage of food, nor of living space, on this planet. The problems are getting the food and the people to the right places. The solution to those problems is not to sterilize people--medically or legally--against their will. The only reason to do that is to keep certain people in power so they can continue to exploit everyone else. And that is evil.
Nobody is denying you having a family. Or are you saying that having just 2 children is not having a family?
Where I come from? I come from a country where gypsies have 6,7,8,9, more children, sucking welfare checks from the government. They occupy their spare time with laying around, marking retired, defenseless people for robberies and extortion, sending their children to developed countries to pickpocket. They view their children as a resource to exploit in one way or another. And before you make an attempt to defend them, saying that they are in an unfortunate position, I have to inform you that they are very much content with their position and do not want to change it at all. They like their lives the way they are. They think of it like culture. It certainly is one, whether it is worthy of preserving is a wholly other discussion.
So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
In the example you give, uncontrolled population is not the problem. Social policies and cultural values are the problems. And I don't think limiting the number of children people can have is the right solution, not morally, ethically, or practically.
Now, who are you (not literally you) to say how many children I'm allowed to have? Who are you to control the size of my family? What business is it--or should it be--of yours? (Maybe we just have very different ideas about the proper roles of government.)
Anyway, if the problem is too many undeserving people on welfare, change the eligibility requirements for receiving welfare.
> So, please, come off your high horse and be a realist about the situation. I have yet to see evidence of humans, en masse, self-determine on impairment in the name of bigger picture.
You haven't? I think that, say, the Soviet Union would be an example of that, and communism in general. Although one could argue that that wasn't a case of self-determinism. It depends on the scale you're talking about. I think there are many examples of mobs of one scale or another being convinced to follow a certain path which had negative consequences. If the mob agrees with its leader, are its actions "self-determined"? Or if they think they're headed for success, are they "impairing" themselves? What matters, intent or results?
>Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control?
When you are presented with any situation in your life it's always possible that you have incomplete information and there is the theoretical possibility of some 'uncomprehendable' factor at work. In response to that dilemma you could refuse to ever try and make any action to improve your life because you might have misunderstood the situation. You could believe that any attempt to gain knowledge and act on that knowledge is wrong because there are always greater 'mystical' forces at play and you can never be sure if you are right. That is a radically anti-science and anti-civilisation position.
It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces.
> In response to that dilemma you could refuse to ever try and make any action to improve your life because you might have misunderstood the situation. You could believe that any attempt to gain knowledge and act on that knowledge is wrong because there are always greater 'mystical' forces at play and you can never be sure if you are right. That is a radically anti-science and anti-civilisation position.
You are completely misrepresenting my position. I did not say that we should do nothing. What I am saying is that we should not do things that will definitely harm people to try to stop something that 1) we do not know will happen, and 2) we do not know we can affect.
If you are advocating doing such things, then that is an anti-civilisation position.
> It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces.
I have not said anything of the sort. You are misrepresenting me to such an extent that it's simply ridiculous. I have not said in any way that our political or economic systems are good or or well-functioning or do not cause harm. Nor have I said in any way that we should not attempt to understand or interact with the world, nor have I said anything about mystical forces.
You have accused me of thinking and saying these things in several comments now. It seems a common tactic for one side of these issues to accuse the other of taking "extreme," "anti-science," "mystical" positions. That is simply dishonest. And having demonstrated such blatant dishonesty, I don't know why anyone would believe anything else you say.
You're effectively trolling, and I won't feed you anymore.
> Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control?
True possible, but where does that theory lead us?
Sorry, I don't consider LW and Yudkowsky to be citable references. Modern-day snake oil salesman selling insurance against technological boogeymen from the future, or indulgences to forgive sins of the past against the AI god of the future, all under a guise of pseudo-rationality.
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.
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).
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.
It's the same on reddit. Large corporations (who are running the show) are themselves putting out this propaganda. Many are right to point out the "Large Corporations" as part of the problem. However, they don't see the greater pattern. As our world becomes ever-more automated, the labour market requires less human workforce. Once the "top" of society have completely automated their profit making, they no longer have a use for the rest of humanity. Hence the propaganda of "You lot are the problem" and everyone is like "oh yes, we're the problem".. WELL, NO. THEY are the problem. What's the solution? Cryptocurrencies and balls of steel, I guess. The whole show is organized and humans no longer form a part of the picture for the overlords so rather than clean up the environment themselves and ALLOW (yes, allow) the use of alternative CLEAN energy, their next ploy is to convince us that we're useless CO2 breathers who are taking up space in their back yard and are no longer necessary - and that "we're the problem". Well, we're THEIR problem I guess... IF we actually did something about it.
> As our world becomes ever-more automated, the labour market requires less human workforce. Once the "top" of society have completely automated their profit making, they no longer have a use for the rest of humanity. Hence the propaganda of "You lot are the problem" and everyone is like "oh yes, we're the problem"
That may very well be the elephant in the room. In all the talks about AGW/climate change, biodiversity, etc, I've never seen anyone talk about the issue of increasing automation and unemployment, and how they may be connected politically.
If increasing automation results in increasing unemployment, that could result in increasing social unrest. What better way to prevent that than by reducing the population. And what better way to do that than by convincing people that we're killing the planet and need to stop having babies.
I don't know about grand conspiracies, but as far as emergent behaviors, it's very interesting.
Can you give me an example of the kinds of politics that one of these "soft right wing" people would have? Because if you think that most of HN's readership is "soft right wing," I think you're either wrong, or your definition of right/left is different than mine.
HN is definitely left-leaning as a whole, I think it's a programmer's thing in general. The more radical ones take advantage of that and engage in subversive actions. If you take the time to read the whole threads on politically charged topics, take notes of people, follow their links, you will arrive at some disturbing conclusions.
I have seen several websites often cited by a small group of people, which are very meticulously crafted in both the development and communication aspects. They provide excellent rhetoric on issues such as basic income, GMO, planet preserving initiatives and other such things of importance. Since the sites are not monetized at all, it greatly piqued my interest how such high level operations can exist and I ventured to follow the money. Now, such investigations are very difficult and time consuming to conduct and even then, very inconclusive, but you can imagine how surprised I was when two of the sites were sponsored primarily an NGO loosely connected with VTB Group. Do you know that bank, alphapapa?
I had not heard of VTB before, but I guess your point is that it's Russian. That's interesting. What do you think they're trying to do? Weaken competing economies by convincing them to artificially hamper themselves?
BTW, have you published your research anywhere? Like, even on some anonymous blog, or a comment on a relevant one? Sounds like something that should be spread around beyond this little HN thread.
VTB is KGB's bank. It's common knowledge in every post-soviet state. It is hard to speculate what their end-game might be. Anything from protecting Russia against foreign interests through offense, to world domination and everything in between. My guess would be in the "everything in between" realm. Former USSR borders are desirable to the Russian president, it seems. Adversaries, troubled by domestic problems are easier to fend off. I'm afraid, or I should rather say, happy that those endeavours are proving to be quite expensive and without much meaningful result on the horizon.
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.