[HN Gopher] Bark beetles are eating through Germany's Harz forest
___________________________________________________________________
Bark beetles are eating through Germany's Harz forest
Author : geox
Score : 105 points
Date : 2023-08-04 13:44 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| chr1 wrote:
| To fix issues like this we need more work on gene drive.
| Targeting doublesex gene in insects has a very promising results
| in different species from mosquitos
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24790-6 to fruit-flies
| https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2301525120. So it can be
| used to eliminate the most harmful pest species.
| remote_phone wrote:
| It seems like signing up for globalization means having to accept
| consequences like this. You can't bemoan when invasive species
| affects local ecosystems when you also allow unabated global
| transport with absolutely no security or inspection for diseases
| or insects etc.
|
| You can't be lazy with inspection and then be shocked when an
| extremely global eceonomy introduces Bark Beetles and decimate
| your trees. Either accept this outcome or spend more money at
| entry points or stop globalization with countries that don't
| inspect their exports to avoid the situation completely.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| The bark beetle is not an invasive species in Central Europe
| though. The main reason is climate change (the last decade was
| increasingly hotter, drier and 'stormier') combined with a man-
| made tree mono culture (which goes back a few hundred years).
| leptons wrote:
| The same thing happened in California also due to climate
| change. The beetles here thrived far more than they used to
| due to shorter/warmer winters with less/no snow in the
| mountains, and beetle population exploded and they killed
| probably a million or more trees. Up in the mountains in
| California you can't drive anywhere without seeing thousands
| of dead trees all around you - and it's everywhere in the
| mountains here, probably millions of trees dead - I obviously
| don't know an exact count, but it's quite a lot.
| myshpa wrote:
| We make it too easy for the bugs:
|
| a) Monocultures of trees originally grown in higher altitudes
| with high water demands make it easy for the bark beetles to
| thrive (esp. in this warming climate).
|
| b) Additionally, these monocultures usually lack multiple levels
| of vegetation, allowing wind to pass through (it should go over)
| and further drying the land, harming the trees and creating a
| favorable environment for the beetles.
|
| c) We've deforested the countryside so that only small forest
| areas remain, with large clearings, enabling the wind in again.
| Thanks to this the forests are losing their ability to hold water
| and produce new rains, worsening the drought conditions.
|
| d) The removal of dead wood and litter further exacerbates the
| drying and destroys biodiversity, making the conditions even more
| suitable for the bark beetles to infest.
|
| e) Furthermore, we tend to prioritize the felling of the
| strongest and biggest trees, with deep roots, weakening the
| overall resilience of the forest.
|
| f) Instead of letting the trees mature with deep roots, we cut
| down the plantations when they're only 40 years old (youngsters).
|
| g) The spruce and pine monocultures are the most susceptible to
| destruction by beetles, and when they're felled and sold as round
| wood abroad, the cycle continues with the replanting of the same
| type of forest.
| [deleted]
| crickey wrote:
| Its not really an issue, or only problem for humans. Bugs will
| kill the trees, consume the dead wood and fertilize the soil.
| Bio diversity will come back
| myshpa wrote:
| No, the dead wood will get sold, the land will be cleared
| (they have special machinery now which destroys even large
| stumps that makes forest ground look like a crop field), burn
| or take away the dead wood and leave only the bare land.
|
| Then they'll plant the same monoculture again.
|
| It may be different in (some) reservations, but this is the
| common approach.
| crickey wrote:
| Well that just sounds like bad farming. If you cant at
| least think 1 generation ahead then the state must
| intervene
| myshpa wrote:
| Those practices are sanctioned and enforced by the state
| (with huge fines)
| paganel wrote:
| Mention should also be made of a restrained habitat for birds
| that could have eaten those bugs.
|
| The large clearings could have worked in the existing forests'
| advantage, if they would have been left alone (so to speak) and
| had wild grasses/plants been allowed to grow there.
|
| As things stand right now most of the Western European "wild"
| habitat is manicured to hell and back, it feels like one is
| visiting a giant _orangerie_ instead of nature itself. Things
| are a little better in that regard over here in Eastern Europe,
| but rapid societal development (lots more paved roads, people
| having money for vacation houses out in the "wilderness",
| increased tourism) are putting all that in danger.
| hfgjdssaghj wrote:
| The exact same pattern has covered enormous areas of Sweden,
| where industrial-scale timber production, often for nothing
| more than wood-chips, has replaced diverse old-woodland area.
|
| The ancient forests have historically contained bark beetles -
| but crucially also their natural predators in the abundant
| biodiversity of their environment, including predatory insects
| and birds that feed on both the larva and the beetles.
|
| The new monoculture plantations are arid deserts where bark
| beetles thrive without competition or natural checks. Not to
| speak of the tinder these dry and wind-swept forests provide,
| when fires start.
|
| They are very profitable for their corporate owners though.
| Tade0 wrote:
| My friend has a property at the very edge of the city and is
| happy to have a "forest" behind his backyard.
|
| I went there to find nothing else than a pine plantation. No a
| single bird or any other animal for that matter there - it's
| essentially a tall lawn.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I found this to be true of many "forests" in parks in Germany
| while living there. Felt absolutely bizarre.
|
| The old airport in Munich got turned into a park, some parts
| are very cool, but there's this one area where they planted a
| bunch of trees...in an extremely precise grid structure. It's
| just so _weird_ to see, like why would you do that? Like a
| stereotype of German culture brought to life.
|
| One example at the park:
| https://maps.app.goo.gl/4G2Wg2BHgfiZkaxe7
|
| Though you can see some other areas where they did the same
| thing.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| If you want old forests, you have to go to the mountains.
| Anyplace steep enough, to hinder easy woodcutting. In those
| places you find the remains of real forest.
|
| But things are changing, there is actually a new diverse
| forest growing, where those monoculture tree plantations
| have been. It will just take some time and hopefully the
| forests gets that time, before monocultures come into
| fashion again..
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| It's the same here in British Columbia. Most people here have
| no idea that a vast bulk of our forests are in fact second or
| third generation since we began managing forests. They're not
| especially vibrant with life, and their diversity is
| remarkably low. If you live near it, it's virtually
| guaranteed that it's not a natural forest.
|
| The amount of truly old, "ancient" (250 or 400 years +,
| depending on stand-replacing disturbance) forest in our vast
| province is minuscule:
| https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-
| resources-...
| Xylakant wrote:
| There are two bits of information that the article omits. Large
| chunks of the Harz forest are a nature reserve and only limited
| action will be taken, for example planting seedlings. Pesticides
| won't be used in those zones - the only action that will be taken
| is a safety corridor around those zones. The spruce forests that
| grow there are not the original forest - they were planted to get
| access to cheap lumber for mining operations, sometimes on
| terrain unsuitable to spruce. Most of them were planted after
| WW2.
|
| Here's an article that goes into a little more detail (in german,
| from the nature park administration) https://www.nationalpark-
| harz.de/de/der-nationalpark-harz/wa...
| [deleted]
| __jonas wrote:
| An interesting case study about this is the Bavarian Forest
| National Park. In the 80s, several major storms caused a huge
| amount of trees to die, and there was a decision made to not
| intervene in the forest ecosystem and leave the dead trees
| instead of removing them.
|
| Then in the 90s because of this and other reasons that created
| a favorable environment for the bark beetles, there was a
| massive spread of them and large parts of the forest died. The
| national park management continued the policy of not
| intervening in the forest ecosystem, which was met by pretty
| heavy criticism from parts of the population.
|
| However it seems to have worked out in the end, as the forest
| is now starting to regenerate.
|
| There is a decent summary on the German Wikipedia page here:
| https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalpark_Bayerischer_Wald#...
| hirundo wrote:
| They're also a big problem here in New Mexico. I live on a
| heavily wooded lot of mixed pinyon and juniper. About half of my
| pinyon have died, and I've spent much of my free time in the last
| two years removing them. But the surrounding lots and the
| adjacent vast public lands have scary amounts of dead fuel on the
| ground. I'm preparing for a major fire as if it's inevitable and
| imminent, rather than just another risk. My previous home
| insurance company doubled my rates so I moved to another ...
| which my agent tells me, has already withdrawn insurance
| underwriting from much of the area.
|
| The pinyon that are left tend to be the ones that grow closely
| with the juniper, which is somehow protective. Removing dead
| trees seems to slow down the disease in nearby trees, so it acts
| like a spreading infection. I'm told that the bark beetles are
| usually controlled by die-offs in winter cold snaps, and we just
| haven't had the necessary cold snaps in recent winters.
| blakesterz wrote:
| Similar situation here in NY, the ash trees are pretty much wiped
| out:
|
| https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7253.html
|
| These were some of the most common trees around until this damn
| bugs got here. The emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus planipennis)
| is an invasive beetle from Asia that infests and kills North
| American ash species (Fraxinus sp.) including green, white, black
| and blue ash. All of New York's native ash trees are susceptible
| to EAB.
| mattpallissard wrote:
| Same thing happened where I'm from, Illinois, a decade ago or
| so. They were basically all wiped out.
|
| However the past few times I've visited I've actually noticed
| both young ash trees and old "dead" trees that had been cut
| down to the stump with new growth.
|
| It makes me wonder if there'll be new a balance struck where
| there will be ash trees, and there will be ash borer, just
| fewer of each.
| unboxingelf wrote:
| Similar on the west coast in Oregon - bark beetles decimating
| douglas fir and pine.
| hedora wrote:
| They're also rampant around the SF bay area; they mostly
| leave the native trees alone, but I'm staring at a massive
| dead pine tree that was healthy a few years ago.
|
| The damage in the article looks different though. Our beetles
| seem to focus on a ring of bark near the ground, so they
| don't have to eat nearly as much to kill the tree.
| Octokiddie wrote:
| > But the tiny insects have been causing outsized devastation to
| the forests in recent years, with officials grappling to get the
| pests under control before the spruce population is entirely
| decimated. Two-thirds of the spruce in the region have already
| been destroyed, said Alexander Ahrenhold from the Lower Saxony
| state forestry office, and as human-caused climate change makes
| the region drier and the trees more favorable homes for the
| beetles' larvae, forest conservationists are preparing for the
| worst.
|
| It seems this is not exactly new:
|
| > Around 1800, large swathes of the Harz were deforested. The
| less resistant spruce monoculture, that arose as a consequence of
| the mining industry in the Upper Harz, was largely destroyed by a
| bark beetle outbreak and a storm of hurricane proportions in
| November 1800. This largest known bark beetle infestation in the
| Harz was known as the Grosse Wurmtrocknis, and destroyed about
| 30,000 hectares (74,000 acres) of spruce forest and lasted about
| for 20 years. The woods were largely reforested with spruce.
| Continuous problems with bark beetle and storms were the negative
| side effects of mining in the Harz Mountains.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harz
|
| > In the longer term, mixing other tree species into the forest
| could be a solution, Ahrenhold said. "It makes sense to plant
| other conifers that can cope better with these conditions,
| especially on south-facing slopes and on very dry soil," he said.
|
| The AP article fails to mention the massive amount of
| deforestation and animal depopulation that's occurred for
| centuries now, but which is well-documented in the Wikipedia
| article. This gives the misleading impression that what's
| happening now is somehow unprecedented.
|
| The issue, it seems, is that trying to "manage" the land doesn't
| work. It may even be more the root of the problem than the
| solution.
| myshpa wrote:
| > The problem, it seems, is trying to "manage" the land, which
| has not worked in the past and seems unlikely to work in the
| future.
|
| Money, as always.
| acyou wrote:
| I would attribute bark beetle issues to rising winter
| temperatures. As others have stated, monocultures are nothing new
| and haven't been much of an issue in temperate climates for
| centuries. Low winter temperatures (frosts) for extended periods
| of time are what keep bark beetle in check. Germany has been
| missing those for some time, hence the bark beetle issue.
|
| Aside from that, Deutscher Wald looks great, which is nothing
| new. Pinecones are stacked in neat piles, underbrush cleared,
| trees are in tidy rows.
| myshpa wrote:
| > Deutscher Wald looks great, which is nothing new. Pinecones
| are stacked in neat piles, underbrush cleared, trees are in
| tidy rows
|
| Oh yes, of course, that's precisely how nature intended it to
| be! Neat and orderly, just like a perfectly manicured garden ;)
| jansan wrote:
| I remember that when I was in school good parts of the Harz
| mountains were destroyed by the Bark Beetle, but at that time it
| was acid rain that made matters worse. It was a poster example of
| the Waldsterben (dying of forests) at that time. This phenomenon
| has been politically abused at least since the 80s.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| The classic 1980's "Waldsterben" meme photo was a strip of dead
| forest along the Czech border near the Fichtelberg though, this
| was most likely caused by dirty coal power station emissions
| from across the border, at times the air would reek of cat piss
| which we used to call "Bohemian Air".. or maybe better
| translated as "Bohemian Wind" :)
| jansan wrote:
| That acid rain certainly had an effect in some regions, but
| people at that time were very fast to attribute every single
| dying tree to that cause, just like today they do it with
| climate change. However, Bark Beetles don't need any helpers
| like acid rain or climate change, they can destroy a forest
| perfectly by themselves if they are in the right mood.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| I agree that the topic was 'exploited' mainly by the Green
| Party in the 80s, but in the area I grew up (south east
| Germany near the Czech border) the forest is definitely in
| a much worse state now than at any time during the last 40
| years, even including the heavy environmental pollution
| caused by the GDR industry.
|
| Since the last 5 years or so there's so many grey, brown
| and empty patches in the forests that it's getting
| downright scary.
| jansan wrote:
| So what do locals think is the reason for this? The past
| few summers have been exceptionally dry and hot here
| (north of your place), but is this the only reason? If
| so, let's hope natures uses this cooler and rather wet
| year to recover a bit.
|
| Btw, Inidentially my teenage son just came back from
| "Boofen" there :)
| egberts1 wrote:
| Time to mass-release woodpeckers.
| myshpa wrote:
| We don't leave sick/dead trees in the forests, so there isn't
| enough food for those woodpeckers (or for mushrooms or other
| bugs etc. etc.)
| flohofwoe wrote:
| It's interesting to note that these are not natural forests, but
| essentially man-made tree plantations, reforested since the 18th
| century after the natural forests had been eliminated in the
| centuries before mainly because of ore mining. Same story further
| to the south-east in the Ore Mountains.
|
| Getting rid of the spruce tree mono culture and letting a mixed
| forest regrow will be a good thing even if it will take a century
| or more (that's at least what the strategy seems to be in Ore
| Mountains).
| davidw wrote:
| I wonder how many genuinely "old growth" forests are left in
| Europe and where they are.
|
| This lists a few without much detail
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_old-growth_forests
| dbrgn wrote:
| The Swiss National Park was mostly untouched since 1914:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_National_Park However,
| that probably does not qualify as old growth. The list you
| linked to does not list any forest in Switzerland.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Apparently parts of Ruegen island are "old forest" and some
| patches here in there in nature reserves, but I guess one
| could argue that even the old Slavic and Germanic tribes
| already "cultivated" their forests.
| dahwolf wrote:
| Here you go:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| This seems remarkable from someone who grew up in Toronto,
| where chunks of ancient forests (since the ice sheet
| retreated ~12kya ) are scattered everywhere.
| kiney wrote:
| In germany there is basically none left. But there are
| forests that have been planted centuries ago and are
| relatively undisturbed since then
| [deleted]
| nathias wrote:
| It isn't just in Germany, its getting warmer around Alps and the
| conditions for pines are deteriorating... our whole forest of
| pines was destroyed by bark beetles a few years ago, now it is
| regrowing as a mixed forrest because pines just aren't viable
| anymore.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| related event in California
|
| https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/r5/home/?cid=FSEPRD613875...
| exabrial wrote:
| Take a lesson from the American Rockies, where forests are being
| decimated by a similar beetle blight:
|
| issue prescribed fires, institute managed but aggressive
| proactive logging on public lands, institute maintenance of fire
| roads, and spring cleanup of deadfall... _now_.
|
| Unfortunately, 'environmentalists' thumbed their nose to a lot of
| these practices and the result was half of Rocky Mountain
| National Park burning down.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| tragic opportunism to throw partisanship in with the upset
|
| "do something now" is fine to say but the Devil is in the
| details, as they say. Actions have re-actions and ripple
| effects. Wise management is what got "us" here today ?
|
| humble yourself then work with all your might, seems
| appropriate now
| swarfield wrote:
| Just because we messed it up in the past doesn't mean we
| didn't learn from it and can't adapt our strategies in the
| future as new data comes in.
|
| Changing nothing is the most harmful strategy right now.
| swarfield wrote:
| This really pissed me off. Half of the trees in RMNP were/are
| dead standing since the Park Service had put out all natural
| fires for a century and did not allow logging of the dead wood.
| We hit the point where the fuel situation is so bad that fires
| are no longer controllable, and the fires burn so much hotter
| that it permanently scars the land by burning seeds that
| usually would make it through just fine.
| e4e5 wrote:
| Couldn't they remove some of the underbrush?
| brazzy wrote:
| I think you underestimate the scale of the problem by a few
| orders of magnitude.
|
| That park is over a thousand square kilometers,
| mountainous, and with very few roads.
| exabrial wrote:
| This comment got downvoted but I think it's an important
| question.
|
| Answer is: probably not, for the other reason stated. But
| it is sort of the wrong question too. Is underbrush removal
| the problem? Not really. There are a lot of things fire
| removes, besides underbrush, and restores to a natural
| state.
|
| What we need to wrap our heads around is _fire is natural_;
| it's been here eons before humans walked the earth, and the
| native trees and forest have long evolved to take advantage
| of it.
|
| The question we might ask instead is: why are so we so
| opposed to a natural process? Fire is definitely bad inside
| things like cities. However, a prescribed burn has enormous
| benefits that have been detailed in science literature ever
| since we noticed a decline in forests.
| zackmorris wrote:
| I just want to say that I live in the northwest and disagree
| with your analysis.
|
| The problem today is mis-blaming the wrong cause. This is like
| victim blaming. So the real culprit here is a century of forest
| mismanagement and clearcutting which led to massive fires.
| Combined with global warming (warm winters which don't kill
| beetles) and free trade which allows pests free passage
| everywhere. But you blame environmentalists.
|
| Because of that, your prescription for more logging and
| thinning will likely have the opposite effect of what's
| intended. You'll apply a tech and market solution to a problem
| of natural collapse and human culture. Which will have
| unintended consequences and cause a further domino effect of
| negative impacts to the natural world. Note that this is why we
| will likely not solve global warming through technology, nor
| any of the 100+ other catastrophes comprising this Anthropocene
| extinction.
|
| The real answer is along the lines of changing our culture so
| that logging is no longer required. We could grow hemp or any
| number of better natural fibers. We could stop interfering with
| the food chain, for example by not endlessly fighting the
| reintroduction of wolves. But these types of answers are a lot
| of work and take decades and don't appeal to ego.
|
| We have to ask ourselves: if we're serious about preventing the
| loss of our forests, are we willing to leave the trees where
| they fall for no financial gain? Are we willing to leave oil in
| the ground to prevent global warming? Will we aid countries
| being assaulted who have nothing to pay us with? Will we help
| children to eat whose parents are on drugs? And so on. Or will
| we rationalize and whatabout and fail to do what's right for
| people we disagree with, and do just exactly the wrong thing.
| Our failure to act outside of ego is what will ultimately
| destroy the planet.
|
| For what it's worth, I don't entirely disagree with you, as I
| was just on a trip to Yellowstone for the first time in 25
| years after the fires tore through in the 90s. The new 6 inch
| diameter trees are beautiful but packed too closely together
| and will need to be thinned. It will be interesting to see how
| that plays out (nature vs nurture), and it could provide a
| sustainable model for other forests.
| exabrial wrote:
| I would suggest following the science then, if you think
| interrupting evolutionary natural events, such as fires, is a
| "good thing".
|
| > We have to ask ourselves: if we're serious about preventing
| the loss of our forests, are we willing to leave the trees
| where they fall for no financial gain?
|
| You need to ask yourself: Are you willing to let the forest
| burn, so natural events can take place?
| jzelinskie wrote:
| I recently visited Harz and subsequently Saxon Switzerland (which
| is in Germany and Czechia, not Switzerland) and both had issues
| with these beetles. I was just a tourist, so I'd love to hear a
| local chime in for any corrections.
|
| I was initially shocked that a country could log their own
| national parks, but eventually came to understand the situation.
| They log to avoid the beetles spreading, but also because the
| trees the beetles have infested become risks of starting fires. A
| fire had occurred on the Czech side of Saxon not too long before
| I visited.
|
| Harz looks specifically bad until you get near the summit
| (Brocken) because they've explicitly decided to naturally re-
| forest the park. This reforestation policy isn't new though; it's
| been applied since miners over-extracted the mountain and
| destroyed much of the park around the dig-sites, the park brought
| in new species, and then ultimately decided those new species
| weren't going to restore their old habitat.
| flohofwoe wrote:
| Yes it's definitely noticeable in my home region (Ore Mountains
| near the Czech border). Not as large scale as in the photos of
| that article, more like isolated spots. The forst is definitely
| getting thinner, at first caused by the massive damage from
| storms like Kyrill, and then the dry summers in recent years.
|
| Same long-term strategy as in the Harz mountains though:
| natural reforestation, which should eventually lead to a more
| robust forest (maybe at the cost of profitability).
| gunapologist99 wrote:
| > Michael Muller, the Chair of Forest Protection at the Technical
| University in Dresden, said there are "very strict requirements
| for the use of pesticides" which can be very effective in getting
| rid of the bugs, although the chemicals are sometimes frowned
| upon for their potentially harmful environmental side effects.
|
| but an actually harmful side effect is that the forest is now
| (more than) half dead.
|
| if you're going to try to "manage" a forest (as if that's really
| possible), you should actually manage it. Otherwise, let it grow
| on its own with the widest variety of trees that would normally
| be there.
| lhoff wrote:
| The later is whats happening now. They let the nature do its
| thing. The bugs are only part of the problem. They are so
| widespread because it's gotten to dry there which makes the
| trees vulnerable.
| Borg3 wrote:
| 10B ppl, we can make it! lulz...
|
| I wonder when people will wake up and stop following that stupid
| never ending economy growth pattern. Its just impossible..
| Nothing in nature grows for ever.. ok.. except blackholes but
| thats special case...
|
| We either can have 200M happy ppl living decent lives or 10B poor
| ppl, struggling for basic things.
| myshpa wrote:
| > stupid never ending economy growth pattern. Its just
| impossible
|
| Agree with degrowth, exponential growth in a finite environment
| is not physically possible.
|
| > 200M happy ppl living decent lives or 10B poor ppl
|
| We can feed 10B people just fine ... with plant based diets.
|
| But don't worry, if we don't stop fossil fuels and animal ag
| pronto, we'll get to 200M or less soon enough. Not so sure
| about "happy" though.
|
| https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471
|
| Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may
| be achievable
| Borg3 wrote:
| Haha.. funny argument. Feeding is just one problem. There are
| few to handle more:
|
| - providing goods for people
|
| - managing their biological waste
|
| - managing their technological waste
|
| All those needs energy, from whatever source.. And we cannot
| scale it up forever.
| myshpa wrote:
| > Feeding is just one problem
|
| But the biggest one, given the resistance it evokes and how
| much damage our current practices cause (esp. biodiversity
| loss, deforestation, soil erosion, eutrophication,
| excessive water, use ... all driven by animal ag).
|
| > All those needs energy
|
| Agree, and understand. We're too dependent on fossil fuels,
| and the EROI keeps falling down.
|
| I hope we'll manage to switch to renewables before the time
| runs out. Some hope is necessary :)
| chr1 wrote:
| 200M is not enough to maintain the current level of technology.
| There simply won't be enough people to develop new cpus, build
| rockets, maintain enough communication cables and satellites,
| research new treatments.
|
| On the other hand 200M is quite enough to destroy ecosystems
| and cause mass extinctions, like we did with megafauna
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event.
|
| How can one live a decent life, if his loved ones die from
| illnesses that would have been treatable if there were more
| people, and if one knows that all of his descendants eventually
| will die from a fall of an asteroid because there is not enough
| people to ever develop measures against that.
|
| In fact we live much better lives than what any of our
| ancestors did. And earth can sustain much more than 10B. We'll
| use gene drive to eliminate species like bark beetles, and when
| we double the population we'll be able to control the weather,
| solving by that climate change issue, and allowing population
| to double again.
|
| > Nothing in nature grows for ever
|
| maybe, but there are no signs that we are at a point that we
| can't grow anymore, because there is so much unused space
| around us. 30% of land are empty deserts that can be used with
| new technologies, 3x more is sea surface that can be used when
| we have enough people to develop seasteading, and after that
| there is virtually infinite amount of empty planets in our
| galaxy, so we are not even near the limit.
| Vecr wrote:
| Black holes don't actually grow forever, at least if you accept
| hawking radiation and the heat death of the universe.
| Eventually the evaporation due to hawking radiation will
| outpace the inflow of matter and light, causing the black hole
| to shrink until it is gone.
| low_common wrote:
| So what are you gonna do about it?
| robocat wrote:
| > We either can have 200M happy ppl living decent lives or 10B
| poor ppl
|
| False dichotomy. We can have both (and probably do - and you
| are likely one of the 200M winners since you write English,
| have access to HN and you have the free time to comment on HN).
|
| You are making the ugly argument for
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism - better hope you
| are one of the few lucky winners!
| Borg3 wrote:
| Oh, thats not that simple. Curves in nature are never linear
| or exponental. They are mixed, depending on several factors.
| But always you will hit plateau. Not understanding it means
| you are poor at math.
|
| Just take a look at human population graph past last 2000
| years. And why growth was such small? Answer is simple,
| energy density. Once humans started to use coal and later oil
| (high density energy sources) they could utilize machines to
| do all the hard work and so, we could grow futher. (I skip
| other importand achivements, but they are directly linked to
| energy density anyway).
|
| As for the winner, oh well.. Yeah, im lucky one that I born
| in western world, I can have nice job and live in pretty fine
| conditions. But also, I am not person that will deny such
| live to other people, like all those fanatics saying we can
| have 10B ppl living. Yeah, we can.. in shitty conditions. But
| why those saying that usually are very rich having serveral
| huge houses and acres of land for themselfs, leaving others
| in small flats and working hard.
|
| Again, we cannot afford that for 10B ppl.
| m0llusk wrote:
| If you listen carefully to an infected tree, for example with a
| stethoscope applied directly to the trunk, then you can hear the
| mandible chatter generated by thousands of tiny mouths feeding.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-04 23:02 UTC)