Hacker News Reader

Comment by bbor | Hacker News Reader

How so?

“These boundaries are not tipping points—it’s possible to recover from passing them”

Debatable whether that is completely walking back the headline, but the headline is clearly trying to give the impression it's irreversible without actually making a claim that could thereby be defeated: “brink”, “breaching”, “boundaries” “support life” are all very suggestive of irreversible doom, and yet…

that's not really walking it back... recovery is much more difficult than not causing the problem in the first place, and because it can be reversed doesn't mean it will be

Like I said, it's english prose and the applicability of “walking it back” is subject to debate. I'm not arguing the point, just pulling out the obvious triggering line and explaining where I think the sentiment is coming from.

but why

that isn't walking back that we're on the brink of breaching the 7th boundary. it just adds more detail into what these boundaries are.

Ah. I see where you’re coming from but don’t really agree - I think you’re (understandably!) bringing in that assumption yourself from general climate worries. Countries have boundaries that you can come back from after crossing, as do people. I mean, they’re kinda describing the framework directly.

How else would you phrase it? “About to cross a line indicating serious danger”? Maybe “approaching a scientific benchmark tied to catastrophic risk”?

Like I said in another reply, the applicability of “walking it back” is certainly subject to debate. I'm not arguing the point, just pulling out the obvious triggering line and explaining where I think the sentiment is coming from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com