The Destruction of Earth's Oceans

[Senkaku]

And what do you think I'm doing? But even that entails waking up every day and participating in things that are part of the problem-- I take taxis with internal combustion engines, I eat food grown with fertilizers that are killing the oceans.


Yes, that's generally my view, but I don't appreciate people trying to delude me or others into an unrealistic appraisal of the odds. "Let's not be all doomer" is not an appropriate response to dark but realistic analyses of the challenges we're facing. We shouldn't try to avoid imagining what the consequences of failure are; fear is a very powerful motivator.

It's absolutely "doomer" to say that there's an %100 chance of the oceans dying. Which is what WRA was saying.

Do you think people literally mean things are a certainty every time they say there's a 100% chance of something? The weather app told me there was a 100% chance of rain yesterday because a big front was blowing in, and yes, space aliens could've vaporized the clouds with a heat ray at the last minute and blown away all our expectations based on the facts that were then available, so there wasn't a 100% chance of rain... but come on.

It's a huge problem, but it's not 100% certain that the oceans will die given how people are working against that.

Based on what we know now, it seems to be overwhelmingly the most likely outcome. If we're at a point where "doomerism" vs. realism amounts to quibbling over tenths of percentages, I think you're sort of making his point for him.

[Salus Maior]

It's absolutely "doomer" to say that there's an %100 chance of the oceans dying. Which is what WRA was saying.

Do you think people literally mean things are a certainty every time they say there's a 100% chance of something? The weather app told me there was a 100% chance of rain yesterday because a big front was blowing in, and yes, space aliens could've vaporized the clouds with a heat ray at the last minute and blown away all our expectations based on the facts that were then available, so there wasn't a 100% chance of rain... but come on.

He wrote 100%, so I argued against 100%.

You realize he can argue for himself, right? I don't think anyone asked for the "Senkaku interpretation of the WRA scriptures".

[Senkaku]

Do you think people literally mean things are a certainty every time they say there's a 100% chance of something? The weather app told me there was a 100% chance of rain yesterday because a big front was blowing in, and yes, space aliens could've vaporized the clouds with a heat ray at the last minute and blown away all our expectations based on the facts that were then available, so there wasn't a 100% chance of rain... but come on.

He wrote 100%, so I argued against 100%.

You realize he can argue for himself, right? I don't think anyone asked for the "Senkaku interpretation of the WRA scriptures".

Yeah, but he's not here, and I have some free time, so that's what you're getting.

[Suriyanakhon]

And what do you think I'm doing? But even that entails waking up every day and participating in things that are part of the problem-- I take taxis with internal combustion engines, I eat food grown with fertilizers that are killing the oceans.


Yes, that's generally my view, but I don't appreciate people trying to delude me or others into an unrealistic appraisal of the odds. "Let's not be all doomer" is not an appropriate response to dark but realistic analyses of the challenges we're facing. We shouldn't try to avoid imagining what the consequences of failure are; fear is a very powerful motivator.

Well then, keep working to slim down your participation with things you know are the problem.

How is Sen personally not taking a taxi going to make that taxi not emit pollution or not eating a food going to reverse that food's production?

[Salus Maior]

Well then, keep working to slim down your participation with things you know are the problem.

How is Sen personally not taking a taxi going to make that taxi not emit pollution or not eating a food going to reverse that food's production?

If we give up that each individual has responsibility for their consumption then nobody will ever change their consumption.

You can't assume that it's always someone else's problem. You're also contributing even if you're not Bezos, although his time will come eventually.

[Nilokeras]

A lot can happen even in a single year, let alone a decade. The future is never as certain as we think it is.

There is a phenomena in ecology called extinction debt that is relevant here. In essence, it refers to the fact that disturbances to a given system rarely have linear effects that are felt right away after a disturbance events. In many cases, disturbance events can knock ecosystems out of equilibrium through the ripple effects of the initial disturbance and cause the extinction of species or destruction of species assemblages long after the initial disturbances. We can see this in the Amazon, where even if we stopped deforestation tomorrow we've only seen about 10-15% of the extinctions that will result of our actions, as the effects of habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation and climactic change in the region cause the delayed extinction of more and more species as they dwindle away from the effects of our disturbances.

The same pattern is at work in the ocean. It's entirely likely that we have already done enough damage to knock ocean ecosystems (particularly in coasts where fishing effort is highest) out of equilibrium, and even if we stop fishing tomorrow the previous system will not come back. Between this and the several degrees' worth of global warming that we have already baked in to the atmosphere we are in dire straits even if we do everything required tomorrow.

[Salus Maior]

A lot can happen even in a single year, let alone a decade. The future is never as certain as we think it is.

There is a phenomena in ecology called extinction debt that is relevant here. In essence, it refers to the fact that disturbances to a given system rarely have linear effects that are felt right away after a disturbance events. In many cases, disturbance events can knock ecosystems out of equilibrium through the ripple effects of the initial disturbance and cause the extinction of species or destruction of species assemblages long after the initial disturbances. We can see this in the Amazon, where even if we stopped deforestation tomorrow we've only seen about 10-15% of the extinctions that will result of our actions, as the effects of habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation and climactic change in the region cause the delayed extinction of more and more species as they dwindle away from the effects of our disturbances.

The same pattern is at work in the ocean. It's entirely likely that we have already done enough damage to knock ocean ecosystems (particularly in coasts where fishing effort is highest) out of equilibrium, and even if we stop fishing tomorrow the previous system will not come back. Between this and the several degrees' worth of global warming that we have already baked in to the atmosphere we are in dire straits even if we do everything required tomorrow.

Yes, I have no doubt of that. We can't put things back the way they were, anymore than we can, say, put the Mesozoic back. We're in a different age now, and we will have to adapt to that, but there are solutions to protect our survival and the preservation of our planet.

[Nilokeras]

Yes, I have no doubt of that. We can't put things back the way they were, anymore than we can, say, put the Mesozoic back. We're in a different age now, and we will have to adapt to that, but there are solutions to protect our survival and the preservation of our planet.

There are no 'solutions'. The only 'solution' is to go back in time and get us transitioning off of fossil fuels in 1974. There are proposed methods to mitigate - not repair, not reverse - the damage we've caused and allow our civilization to survive. They may or may not work.

[Salus Maior]

Yes, I have no doubt of that. We can't put things back the way they were, anymore than we can, say, put the Mesozoic back. We're in a different age now, and we will have to adapt to that, but there are solutions to protect our survival and the preservation of our planet.

There are no 'solutions'. The only 'solution' is to go back in time and get us transitioning off of fossil fuels in 1974. There are proposed methods to mitigate - not repair, not reverse - the damage we've caused and allow our civilization to survive. They may or may not work.

That's not in conflict with anything I've said.

[Adamede]

Oceans will 100% die in our lifetimes. There's going to be more plastic than fish in them in just a couple more decades.

It's fun watching the world die in slow-mo. Cinema makes you think the apocalypse is a fast thing but reality doesn't seem to hold to that.

Let's not get all doomer.

A lot can happen even in a single year, let alone a decade. The future is never as certain as we think it is.

It’s going to take a lot more than even a decade to reverse a trend that’s been going on for what, at least a century?

[Resilient Acceleration]

Let's not get all doomer.

A lot can happen even in a single year, let alone a decade. The future is never as certain as we think it is.

It’s going to take a lot more than even a decade to reverse a trend that’s been going on for what, at least a century?

Oh, we absolutely can alter our climate and oceanic composition within a short period of time, through geoengineering. Especially given future technological advancements. The only question is will the results be as what we, eh, wanted.

[Nilokeras]

There are no 'solutions'. The only 'solution' is to go back in time and get us transitioning off of fossil fuels in 1974. There are proposed methods to mitigate - not repair, not reverse - the damage we've caused and allow our civilization to survive. They may or may not work.

That's not in conflict with anything I've said.

Which may of course be the problem, because you don't seem to be saying anything other than tut-tutting 'doomerism' and encouraging people to do better.

[Infected Mushroom]

We need to stop being mean to the oceans.

What have the oceans done to us? What have the fish done to us?

We must all learn to get along. We must stop hurting the oceans.

[Ayytaly]

What does Mr. Krabs feel about this?

[Salus Maior]

That's not in conflict with anything I've said.

Which may of course be the problem, because you don't seem to be saying anything other than tut-tutting 'doomerism' and encouraging people to do better.

I'm posting on NSG, not writing an 12 page paper. Lower thy standards.

[Ayytaly]

Which may of course be the problem, because you don't seem to be saying anything other than tut-tutting 'doomerism' and encouraging people to do better.

I'm posting on NSG, not writing an 12 page paper. Lower thy standards.

God's footstool, the Earth is.

[Senkaku]

What have the fish done to us?

They eat us? And they eat cetaceans and cephalopods too, some of the only other creatures on Earth to evolve intelligence? The fish had this coming, they’re a bunch of murdering bastards and it was just a matter of time before they crossed the wrong clade.

[Resilient Acceleration]

What have the fish done to us?

They eat us? And they eat cetaceans and cephalopods too, some of the only other creatures on Earth to evolve intelligence? The fish had this coming, they’re a bunch of murdering bastards and it was just a matter of time before they crossed the wrong clade.

Aren't we ourselves are technically fish though

[Mercatus]

I hate jellies. I’m not scared by much, but those things creep me the fuck out.

Also, the abyss of the very, very deep parts of the ocean should remain okay. Someone tell me is it possible to eat Hagfish or a giant isopod?

Counterintuitively, the deep abyss is in fact an extremely vulnerable ecosystem. There is no light down there, there's literal kilometres of water blocking the sun's warmth, so basically all of the nutrition that comes there is in the form of 'marine snow', dead matter from above drifting below. If you ever have the time, I highly recommend looking at whale-fall communities, fascinating stuff.

But what happens when everything up top has died? Or even just sufficiently large amounts of the biosphere is overfished by humanity that the marine snow reduces or even stops? Everything dies. With the exception of a few thermal vents that could keep surviving even if the sun went dark, the bottoms would be near utterly lifeless.

Hmmm...

In that case, we could throw the bodies of death row criminals into the ocean to create said marine snow. They could finally do something beneficial for the planet.

[Infected Mushroom]

What have the fish done to us?

They eat us? And they eat cetaceans and cephalopods too, some of the only other creatures on Earth to evolve intelligence? The fish had this coming, they’re a bunch of murdering bastards and it was just a matter of time before they crossed the wrong clade.

The ocean is our friend. We should protect the ocean.

[Mercatus]

We need to stop being mean to the oceans.

What have the oceans done to us? What have the fish done to us?

We must all learn to get along. We must stop hurting the oceans.

The fish existed, that's why. It's their fault for tasting good. If some living thing exists, chances are humans have killed at least one. It's what we do best, judging by our history and inherently confrontational nature.

[Arkhane]

I'm pretty sure an impactor asteroid or a supervolcano will reset everything in a hundred or thousand years or so. Or even sooner.

Nature doesn't need our help, and we're arrogant, entitled beings for thinking it's in any danger from us.

I believe it's the opposite, we're the one's creating the right conditions to purge us en masse eventually.

I propose a solution that's already sticking it straight to where humans can actually feel it, jack the prices up for food, shelter, medical care, water and other basic and luxury amenities, make it incredibly hard for people to live and give birth or think about expanding.

Judging by the still growing population, humanity is still not being disincentivized enough, a better quality of life should be at our expense, not nature's.

[Nilokeras]

Which may of course be the problem, because you don't seem to be saying anything other than tut-tutting 'doomerism' and encouraging people to do better.

I'm posting on NSG, not writing an 12 page paper. Lower thy standards.

There is an infinity of space between twelve page essays and where the bar for your posts is right now, on the floor. I encourage you to explore it more often.

[Kowani]

I'm pretty sure an impactor asteroid or a supervolcano will reset everything in a hundred or thousand years or so. Or even sooner.

Nature doesn't need our help, and we're arrogant, entitled beings for thinking it's in any danger from us.

not all of nature is, but a very substantial portion of it

I believe it's the opposite, we're the one's creating the right conditions to purge us en masse eventually.

I propose a solution that's already sticking it straight to where humans can actually feel it, jack the prices up for food, shelter, medical care, water and other basic and luxury amenities, make it incredibly hard for people to live and give birth or think about expanding.

all of those things are the end result of our current path

Judging by the still growing population, humanity is still not being disincentivized enough, a better quality of life should be at our expense, not nature's.

if you want to discourage people from having kids, you want to make people wealthy
it's far more effective than "mass poverty lol"

[Arkhane]

if you want to discourage people from having kids, you want to make people wealthy
it's far more effective than "mass poverty lol"

Oh I don't know about that, a poor person living in a hut harms the enviroment less than one who can afford fancy jet rides across the world with 17 houses, 50 cars and 2 yachts.

And it's way easier to make everyone poor than make everyone rich, or even just comfortable enough, there's not enough resources in this planet to make everyone wealthy and living in comfort.

If we have another planet size worth of resources, we could try, but that's just a short term solution, since it would just mean our 8 billion will soon become 16 billion.

If we can still thrive and pop out more than how many of us dies as a species at this level of scarcity, imagine what we would be like if all our needs are met 100% and all we have left for is to grow plump and have sex and breed all day.