[chrisco255]

It's really not though is it, that's just your programming thinking for you.

Human deaths from weather and climate related events are near all time lows, while overall population is indeed at all time highs. We have better crop yields (3) and productivity thanks to both technology and indeed, CO2 fertilization of the atmosphere (4), which is driven by photosynthesis, a process which is optimized at thousands of ppm for the vast majority of plant species, many multiples from where we now stand.

Of course, the most abundant periods for life on earth have been periods of abundant carbon, such as the Carboniferous era, and the Cambrian era (5).

Clearly the ecosystem is far from collapse as a result of mild warming and improved plant productivity. In many regards, it's thriving, and certainly more so than 100-120 years ago, which predated any pretense of conservation at all.

And we know that it's indeed glaciation (global cooling) that so often leads to catastrophe in ecosystems (1)(2).

But that we can program human beings with subtle prods of horrific and exaggerated headlines, along with cult-like expectations of consensus, into believing the opposite to be true from reality, is certainly an indication of paperclip optimization gone awry.

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259495017_Ecologica... (2) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360894775_Global_co... (3) https://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/usda-raises-the-us-co... (4) https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... (5) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5942912/

[pixl97]

Huge amount of monocultures are not the sign of a healthy environment, but one that is at the precipice of collapse.

This behavior is seen in animal populations quite often. A series of 'good' events happen allowing the population to expand beyond the mean population capacity. If the good times are excessively long or excessively good you can see a rapid overshoot in total population. When this occurs the population is screwed. Even if 'bad' times do not come just reducing resources to what the mean population can support means that a large dying off will occur, that die off will typically kill almost all the population of said animal because of consumption of almost all available food. You then get a drastic reduction in total population far below the mean carrying capacity. If the environment switches from 'good' times, say high water availability into extreme extended drought you can get species extinction.

[sidewndr46]

You're making the mistake of assuming that somehow humanity is better off because our population is larger. There is no intrinsic benefit to a population of 8 billion, 4 billion, or 2 billion. None of those numbers are a population bottleneck in any manner. For comparison, bonobos have a population of something like 50,000.

Having more people doesn't improve the quality of life of those people. It's just more people.

[rollo]

Clearly the ecosystem is far from collapse while we're in the middle of a rapid human-caused mass-extinction. What kind of propaganda are you smoking, bro.

[chrisco255]

Sorry, but according to NASA satellite data, you are sorely mistaken: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer...

[ajuc]

Diversity vs biomass. If AI prefers biomass over diversity we're pretty much fucked ;) If it prefers diversity - at least some of us will remain in ZOOs ;)

[chrisco255]

The conditions necessary for biomass expansion are also conducive to biodiversity. Indeed, the vast majority of biological diversity is in the tropical region of earth. Species of life seem to have a very hard time in the arctic regions.

As for AIs, I see no reason why they should prefer any characteristic of ecology at all, if all of their needs can be met from silicon and electricity.

(1) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259552528_Why_are_t...

[ajuc]

> The conditions necessary for biomass expansion are also conducive to biodiversity.

It might be the case in general, but currently we're experiencing biodiversity loss on the global scale. [1] [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity_loss [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

[Sharlin]

I’m loath to reply to a comment that’s either idiotic, propaganda, or a troll, but one word:

d/dt

[chrisco255]

The sources are cited and your comment is against HN policy. If you care to engage with someone more educated than yourself on a topic, I'm happy to debate on fair terms.

[Sharlin]

Your sources are absolutely irrelevant when your argument has a vast hole that is evident to anyone who has even a little bit of actual understanding about the issue. You can cargo-cult as many sources you like, they do nothing to save a fundamentally broken argument.

[austinjp]

You're well aware of the game you're playing, your argumentation is disingenuous. You have reframed and obfuscated the issue of climate change to suit your preferred narrative, and misrepresented the science. You have indulged in ad hominem attack by saying someone here is less educated than you, thereby flouting the site's guidelines while at the same time invoking them to hide behind them.

Regarding the papers you cite, you seem to have misrepresented the views of the authors.

You cite author J Brown [1]. Another of his papers [2] says "increased energy demand and climate consequences of burning fossil fuels will continue to accompany a rapidly urbanizing planet posing major challenges for global sustainability."

You cite a NASA report of a study, saying it denies mass extinction, and suggesting that global warming supports increased life by making polar regions habitable. The report and study do not support your position. The paper itself [3] cites [4] which stresses the importance of minimising climate warming via "net negative emissions". The authors also acknowledge that "most models lack a representation of regionally important ecosystems (peatlands, wetlands)" the destruction of which they note as "negative".

Your citing of glaciation is frankly odd, and again the papers don't support your arguments. For example in [5] the authors say "it was the loss of habitat diversity [...] that triggered a drop in speciation rate, and subsequent loss of biodiversity." Further, they contradict your assertions by pointing out that biodiversity can increase in cooler zones: "cool-water niches were available to be filled, warm-tropical niches did not exist". However, to go further down this rabbit hole would be to indulge in your game of misdirection, and I've no intention of doing that.

In short, your posts in this thread appear entirely untrustworthy and you seem to be acting in bad faith. I notice you've posted climate change 'skeptical' content here previously. You suggest it is others who have been "programmed", but seem reluctant to examine the nature of your own susceptibility to misinformation, which frankly comes across as disdainful and superior.

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Brown-37

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331075555_The_Centr...

[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 and https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1038/nclimate3004.pdf

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1783

[5] https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1130/G32679.1.pdf