Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed on HN; nor is using the site primarily for ideological battle. I know these issues are important and your commitment to them is sincere, but we're trying to have a particular kind of conversation here, and this is not a platform suitable for pre-existing agendas.
Since we asked you to stop (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37384170) and you've not only ignored that request but persisted in doing exactly what we asked you not to, I've banned the account.
> Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.
I don't want you to be correct, but I fear that you are. My heart breaks thinking about it. My stepdaughter is 23, and she's going to live through some very tough times.
People in positions of power and influence seem to think they can flee to New Zealand and life will continue as before. I don't know how to disabuse them of that notion.
A lot of people are making money by building fear in the ultra rich. They are really gullible. Really hard to bring people that have been scammed up to reason.
Maybe the biggest problem is how big a problem it is. The extent of the problems we're facing may be too overwhelming for the average person to fully comprehend.
Overshoot encompasses many aspects, including biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, resource depletion, and much more.
The fundamental issue is the need for constant growth in a finite environment. Almost all money in the system is created through loans by banks, and there is an interest on that money that must be paid, typically around 3% or so, and this interest compounds exponentially.
As a result, our growth is exponential, and there is no sign of it slowing down. Our GDP doubles every 30 years, while our finite natural environment is the first to be sacrificed in an attempt to service one's debts.
All we see is an attempt at solving the energy, and only partially - because it's the easiest problem. We don't see any real debate about degrowth, reforestation, equity, food system, financial system ... no real progress on any front.
- We should stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible.
- Transitioning to plant-based diets can free up an area the size of both Americas, allowing for reforestation that would halt biodiversity loss and sequester as much carbon as we've released since the Industrial Revolution.
- Agriculture must be reformed to eliminate our reliance on harmful pesticides and practices that destroy biodiversity.
- Overfishing and pollution must be stopped to preserve marine life and ecosystems.
- Developed countries should pursue degrowth while supporting the development of less developed nations.
- Education and restoration should be prioritized over exploitation.
Animal species have witnessed a 70% decline in just the last 50 years. How long until our insect and pollinator populations collapse? How long until forests completely lose their ability to retain moisture and generate rain? How long until oceans are devoid of fish or sharks (with 90% already gone), leading to the collapse of the entire marine ecosystem? How long until major crop failures occur?
There have been collapses of civilizations before, but there has never been a total collapse of the biosphere as well. So I too worry for the future of today's young.
> allowing for reforestation that would [...] sequester as much carbon as we've released since the Industrial Revolution.
That's a common mistake. It won't. Plants sequester carbon only while they are alive. When they die, the carbon returns to the atmosphere. A forest, even with that size won't make a significant impact on carbon stored compared to how much oil and coal we burned. The only solution would be to re-create the carbon deposits, but that can't happen anymore.
The oil we mined from the ground in about 150 years took hundreds of millions of years to form and from what I recall from the subject, it happened in a time where bacteria and fungus didn’t exist to release that carbon from downed trees Abe plants or whatever. The only way to sequester carbon now would be to spend more energy than was released (putting those bonds back together is hard) from our oil use to create something like inorganic carbon bricks we could try and bury underground somewhere that bacteria and fungus cannot reach.
Good luck to us, I’m not confident we can do it. I’m hoping we can though, I have a toddler. I hate climate deniers, to me they are trying to make my son’s life worse and worse because they don’t want their life to be lesser than they expected.
> Nothing will get changed, because solving the problems would mean dismantling the system.
For now, American citizens can ask congress to support a carbon fee and dividend [1], which would create a financial incentive for the system to dismantle itself. There are few forces in the world more powerful than individuals deciding to save money.
> So if it’s inevitable, what are the possible positive effects?
I cannot see any positive effects. We should try to prevent the inevitable, while there's still some time. Not long. But some.
> Should we start looking at transitioning to the changes
I’m starting to think we're likely to face a future akin to that depicted in Threads (1984) or The Road (2009), and I’m not sure anyone can truly prepare for it.
In July 2023, a paper from a pair of University of Copenhagen researchers suggested that AMOC collapse would most likely happen around 2057, with the 95% confidence range between 2025 - 2095.
It may be a controversial paper, but all probabilities are off after this year. So there is a possibility that it could collapse as soon as two years from now.
What do you feel about what’s happening to our planet?
Teenagers are thinking lots about climate change, and many of them, says Hannah, are quite terrified about what’s happening, so it can be really helpful to talk it through. “We need to take action – this is a very serious situation – but you don’t want your child to be fearful the whole time that we’re on the verge of extinction,” she says. Listen to their concerns and be ready to talk about what people can do to make a difference.
Hm ... take action ... extinction ... talk. That shall help.
(Note that the link claims to go to a .jpg file, but actually opens the full reddit UI with cookie wall and the whole shebang. Edit: I had a temporary reupload in here, but since that reupload is temporary and HN comments can be edited for only 2 hours nowadays, well, it's been nearly two hours so I need to remove it now to prevent this comment having a permanently broken link. /edit)
Also, I don't get what you're trying to say by posting a few random words and a link to a comic. Tentatively trying to read something into it: that there is no fixing the problem and we should make "your child to be fearful the whole time that we’re on the verge of extinction"?
Many individuals neglect to address climate change (or rather overshoot), often shifting blame while maintaining their consumption habits. For instance, despite knowing its significant environmental impact, most people are reluctant to reduce meat consumption, risking a bleak future for their offspring. This inaction and mere talk reflect a hypocritical stance, as people avoid making meaningful contributions to climate solutions, ultimately burdening future generations with the problem.
It's a great question for adults. What is crazy about tons of these questions is that the same problems embedded under the surface are completely mismanaged by many/most adults, and civilization as a whole.
Hey, teenager, can you solve the problem where entrenched rich interests refuse to reform the world for our basic survial? Yeah, we can't, and in fact in the last 40 years, we've given the elite so much money and power that under our generational leadership we've made the problem(s) even worse.
Type 2 diabetes, however, is almost always preventable, often treatable, and sometimes even reversible through diet and lifestyle changes. Like other leading killers—especially heart disease and high blood pressure—type 2 diabetes may be an unfortunate consequence of dietary choices. There is hope, though, even if you already have diabetes. Through lifestyle changes, you may be able to achieve a complete remission of type 2 diabetes, even if you’ve been suffering with the disease for decades.
People who eat a plant-based diet have been found to have just a small fraction of the diabetes rate seen in those who regularly eat meat. As diets become increasingly plant-based, there appears to be a stepwise drop in diabetes rates. Based on a study of 89,000 Californians, flexitarians (who eat meat maybe once weekly rather than daily) appear to cut their rate of diabetes by 28 percent, and those who cut out all meat except fish appear to cut their rates in half. What about those eliminating all meat, including fish? They appear to eliminate 61 percent of their risk. And those who go a step farther and drop eggs and dairy, too? They may drop their diabetes rates 78 percent compared with people who eat meat on a daily basis.
“If you overcrowd any space with honey bees, there is a competition for natural resources, and since bees have the largest numbers, they push out other pollinators, which actually harms biodiversity,” he said, after a recent visit to the B&B bees. “I would say that the best thing you could do for honey bees right now is not take up beekeeping.”
Honeybees disrupt the structure and functionality of plant-pollinator networks
... results show that beekeeping reduces the diversity of wild pollinators and interaction links in the pollination networks ... High-density beekeeping in natural areas appears to have lasting, more serious negative impacts on biodiversity than was previously assumed.
The Diversity Decline in Wild and Managed Honey Bee Populations Urges for an Integrated Conservation Approach
Using honey bees as an example, we argue that several management practices in beekeeping threaten genetic diversity in both wild and managed populations, and drive population decline.
Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development
Bees comprise ~ 20 000 described species across seven recognised families ... Fifty bee species are managed by people, of which around 12 are managed for crop pollination ... Wild bees contribute an average of USD$3 251 ha−1 to the production of insect-pollinated crops, similar to that provided by managed honey bees
Not challenging your overall point, but your nwf link specifically calls out the introduction of extra non-native pollinators as a problem, and explains that honeybees were brought over from Europe and thereforr aren't native to North America. The original article is describing honeybeekeepers specifically in Slovenia.
Honeybees aren't native to Europe or the Americas, they originated in Asia. In any habitat at all, keeping honeybees is actually adding some strain to local ecosystems. Honeybees are voracious nectar drinkers, once they're hit a habitat it can support fewer native bees, moths, butterflies, beetles, etc.
Yes, Humans have been keeping domesticate bees for a long time and spread them around the globe. The wild animal that was domesticate originally lived in Southeast Asia.
>How does that compare to intensive agriculture and pesticides?
In general pesticides and habitat loss have more serious impacts, but when you've got a stressed ecosystem adding honeybees that deplete resources from native pollinators is adding to the harm. The bees are pollinating even when they're taking nectar as well, so they're not all bad. But at the same time endangered native bees are put further at risk by honeybees.
Right. But then would you say that the way it is done in Slovenia is a problem? It doesn't really strike me as "intensive beekeeping".
However there are places where there is intensive beekeeping (like for almond production in California, I remember having seen a documentary) and that seems to be a completely different level.
And then there are places in China where they pollinate manually because all the insects die due to the pesticides, and that would be another extreme.
Not trying to make a point, just trying to understand if there is a point where "artisanal beekeeping" is fine or if it is always bad.
I was pointing out as a fact that honeybees deplete nectar from the habitats they're introduced and they're voracious. The honey they fill their hives with is collected nectar from flowers, nectar other wildlife don't have access to. You really don't see other pollinators hoarding nectar this way, and higher honey production has been bred into them. I brought this up since it's not well known among non-biologists, and even beekeepers often don't connect the dots there. Sometimes beekeepers run too many hives, fully deplete their local area and wind up with an impoverished local ecosystem of their on making and weak bees to boot.
Does this effect matter in comparison to other things? Maybe, it depends on the ecosystem and local context. I haven't made any normative statements, just pointed out a fact. If I were to offer a normative opinion, it's that beekeepers should be aware of the effects of their beekeeping and try to be responsible, not keeping hives in areas where they would have an undesirable effect on the pollinators of an ecosystems that's vulnerable.
Sure. Again I'm not asking to debate, I just find it very interesting and was wondering if you had more to say about it.
In my country, I have heard beekeepers saying that we don't want too many hives because they compete with each other and with other pollinators. It is controlled to some extent, so there is the intention, but I don't know if it's based on something scientific or just intuition.
If there were studies about the impact of honeybees, I would be interested, that's all. Because it is true that I have always considered that the main problem is habitat loss and pesticides.
Sorry, been busy, still am busy, really. Besides habitat loss and pesticides, there's the impacts of domesticated animals and other human-originated animals. Those overlap with habitat loss to some degree, but feral cats, rats, dogs, grazing goats, sheep, cattle, starlings (in the US), and other non-native animals like fire ants (in the US), et al have have an impact past lost habitat and lots of species loss is driven by starlings, dogs, cats, and fire ants. Honeybees fit in there as another domesticated animal adding some environmental impact. I don't have a study handy, but those aren't too hard to find. Their impact includes spreading some diseases solitary bees are susceptible as well as reducing the resources for other pollinators.
The effect could be dampened by cultivating bee-friendly crops. Yes, it is a somewhat artificial system and will divert resources away from the natural system but perhaps it would create a boundary between the honeybees and native pollinators
So when talk "Never write a database" is coming? ;)
Charity Majors @mipsytipsy
That's it. That's the talk.
"Never write a database. Even if you want to, even if you think you should. Resist. Never write a database. Unless you have to write a database. But you don't."
I will present this talk at any conference of your choosing.
“So any story that says it’s good to be farming these livestock, it’s good to be eating these livestock, is a story which justifies among the most devastating processes on Earth,” he said. “It is climate science denial.”
Monbiot linked this denial to the interests of major corporations like McDonald’s, General Mills, JBS, and the Murdoch Network, who he says have “backed and weaponized” the idea that grazing cattle is environmentally beneficial. “The story is false,” he said. “When you make a grand claim such as this one, that livestock can mitigate climate change, either you produce the evidence for that claim or if you cannot produce the evidence you withdraw the claim. The evidence has not been produced, the claim does not stand.”
For what it’s worth, there are other studies indicating this as well. There isn’t good data suggesting we can graze animals on a large scale and increase biomass in a meaningful way compared to other options. The trouble is that other options inevitably include “stop eating meat”, and people don’t like to hear this.
