Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamesblonde | Hacker News Reader

You really don't understand anything about dynamical systems do you? It's incredibly naive to assume we will land in some nice stable equilibrium where it's a couple of degrees warmer globally. The truth is we don't know where the climate will end up, but we know that we are in the process of exiting our current 'stable equilibrium'. The worst case scenario (and that is the only one we should be concerned with!) is a global mass extinction event. We've already had 5 of them - one of which was due to runaway greenhouse warming - https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/big-five-extinction...

View on HN

> It's incredibly naive to assume we will land in some nice stable equilibrium where it's a couple of degrees warmer globally.

I don't assume that, nor did I write it. A mass extinction event would have high costs; it's entirely possible, though, that preventing one would have higher costs still (after all, it's not beyond belief that even if the Earth returned to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, mankind could survive).

All I wrote is that we need to consider costs as well as benefits of any scenario, to include doing nothing, and that I currently have relatively little faith in those who are confident in their estimates of costs and benefits. It's a bit surprising that either of these is so controversial.

If 5 global mass extinction events have already happened without any human intervention (positive or negative), why do we think we can stop the 6?

I'd assume from that data, that its going to happen regardless of what we do.

"why do we think we can stop the 6?"

We don't know, but it doesn't mean we should be actively trying to make it happen sooner. Heck, there's a pretty big difference if next mass extinction happens few years/decades from now or few thousand years in a future, when we might be better prepared for it. We all gonna die one day, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve our lives now or make it better for our children.

Haven't we been trying to improve our lives and the lives of our children for 30,000 odd years... Take a look at the situation we created, this world is the direct result of our desire to make things better... We've literally destroyed the earth.

We are not destroying the earth. The earth will go on with or without us. We are destroying the future of millions of humans. It will cause a great deal of pain and suffering. It may even cause the extension of our civilization or even our species.

True, when I say destroying the earth, I mean destroying it for us.

As you said, the earth will be fine.

Your response to possible global mass extinction is to shrug and say whattyagonnado?

Yeah, sort of, like we can try to escape earth, or build something underground, or whatever sci-fi fantasy you like.

But if its our species time to go, than that is what will be.

I'm more of a determinist than a defeatist, I don't really think things could be any different than they already are.

"Nothing occurs at random, but everything for a reason and by necessity." Leucippus

So basically we have no free will so why should we change things? what.

"if it's our species time to go"

but it's NOT. we can make a change. this is like seeing a bulldozer slowly approaching your house - and instead of picking up and moving, despite the difficult, resigning yourself to death. It's illogical, it makes no sense.

This isn't a philosophical debate, but consider something like physicalism rather than free will.... No point in getting into a debate about that, but if you believe in science then you kind of have to believe in determinism.

We aren't really special, we ONLY think we are, we are restricted to the same laws as all other animals over all of time. We THINK we are different and ACT differently, but the 'effects' will still come to our 'causes.'

Take a stoic perspective rather than a defeatist one on the deterministic nature of things and it stops being something to get angry about.

You're telling me that this isn't a philosophical debate and then telling me a philosophical opinion.

Pragmatically, we make decisions. If a car is flying at you at high speed, stopping to think about determinism means you die instead of just jumping to the side and living.

your contribution here is literally null, que sera sera. Yes, the future is not ours to see, but guess what: that means it isn't set in stone.

case in point: heizenberg. measuring something by bouncing photons off it changes it's path. you can't know the future without changing it. thus we can change the future.

Not sure you understand determinism.

Both your examples are examples of deterministic responses.

Also, not knowing what the future will bring, doesn't mean that its not determined to a certain way.

thing is travelling along a pre-determined path.

we can determine it is following this path. but we want to measure it. so we do, and we change it's pre-determined path.

it still is and was always pre-determined. but it is not the same original determination.

I definitely understand determinism. Did you know there is soft and hard determinism?

I'm proving to you here that the future can be determined, but unknown. We can then seek to know it, and in doing so change it's path to another one that is just as determined.

to apply my point - yes, it is determined that the climate will change, temperature will drop and rise. claiming that current changes are a part of this natural change is to say that it was pre-determined, and we didn't do anything to change this.

your mistake is elucidated when you consider this analogy:

'the earth is going to be consumed by the sun eventually. so we shouldn't do anything to save our environment.'

The kind of future you're talking about is going to happen whether we like it or not. but it's SO FAR away. the changes in climate that you say are pre-determined are on a geological time-scale.

Why not? From a purely nihilistic/hedonistic point of view, I can honestly say the strategy with the most personal utility to me is to shrug and say "whattyagonnado" .

Are you aware that the current situation is due to humans using fossil fuels and the problems can be addressed if governments weren't blocking progress? Or are you in denial that this situation is man-made?

I'd say I'm more of a realist, whatever is happening is happening, and whatever the results are going to be are going to be.

Likely some of what is happening is caused by humans and some is outside our control. Likely our actions will make little difference. Realistically the whole world runs on fossil fuels and that is not going to change anytime soon or quickly. Sure they can raise taxes significantly, but that is going to make the food at the grocery store much much more expensive before it makes any serious change on the environment.

You seem to be in denial about how prohibitively difficult it would be to 'fix' this problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com