Catastrophising
Basketactortale
Shipmate
I do not know if anyone else is interested to talk about this topic!
I have recently been thinking about how scientists and environmentalists and greenies/crunchies/ tend towards making everything into a catastrophy.
Which is to say that there are some things that look bad: there clearly are measurable impacts of climate change, desertification and many other things.
But it is not all bad. Industrial agriculture is not thrashing the planet, logic tells us this would be stupid if true because yields would directly and quickly reduce. There clearly is habitat change and species loss going on in some places and that is obviously concerning, but in the main and on the whole that's not happening.
It is tempting to only notice where bad things happen and extrapolate to think that this is representative of everywhere else, even though there is no real evidence that this is true.
Environmental scientists often seem to exaggerate the importance of their research and then over-generalise about the results because this helps with winning grants, getting publicity or both. Nuance and complications get ironed out. Other aspects such as insights from other sciences, politics and ethics get ignored or minimised.
The problem with this mentality is that if one starts to believe that everything is irretrievably broken then there is no prospect of fixing it therefore by definition any effort is wasted effort. In contrast if you think that generally mostly things are working as they should be but that there are serious problems that can be identified then there is a chance of fixing them.
I think there are other things that follow a similar pattern where there is a tendency to exaggerate and focus on the worst parts of an issue and then suggest that this should be taken as indicative of the whole.
I have recently been thinking about how scientists and environmentalists and greenies/crunchies/ tend towards making everything into a catastrophy.
Which is to say that there are some things that look bad: there clearly are measurable impacts of climate change, desertification and many other things.
But it is not all bad. Industrial agriculture is not thrashing the planet, logic tells us this would be stupid if true because yields would directly and quickly reduce. There clearly is habitat change and species loss going on in some places and that is obviously concerning, but in the main and on the whole that's not happening.
It is tempting to only notice where bad things happen and extrapolate to think that this is representative of everywhere else, even though there is no real evidence that this is true.
Environmental scientists often seem to exaggerate the importance of their research and then over-generalise about the results because this helps with winning grants, getting publicity or both. Nuance and complications get ironed out. Other aspects such as insights from other sciences, politics and ethics get ignored or minimised.
The problem with this mentality is that if one starts to believe that everything is irretrievably broken then there is no prospect of fixing it therefore by definition any effort is wasted effort. In contrast if you think that generally mostly things are working as they should be but that there are serious problems that can be identified then there is a chance of fixing them.
I think there are other things that follow a similar pattern where there is a tendency to exaggerate and focus on the worst parts of an issue and then suggest that this should be taken as indicative of the whole.
Comments
Or yields are kept up by unsustainable application of oil-based artificial fertilisers and the destruction of all other flora and fauna.
Journalists tend to be the ones who propagate the most lurid catastrophising; scientists are generally very circumspect. It's just that even the best case scenarios for climate change and species loss are now horrendous. It's not catastrophising to say that the climate is warming faster than at any time we have evidence for, and the rate at which species are going extinct rivals past mass extinction events, it's just fact.
We could argue about the detail of food security, but that seems like an academic debate that would be beyond the scope of this website.
But you are right that there are "tipping points" which could be breached which could easily have extremely serious consequences. The difficulty is identifying accurately what these are, and how close we really are to those breaches.
Could you refute those statements with some evidence? There are plenty of words but no quotes from reputable sources.
Of course it will probably be shoved into a file somewhere and ignored, but that doesn't mean the climate crisis isn't happening, it just means the government doesn't want to spend money on it. And the longer we wait, the more it will cost, until the wet-bulb temperature rises above a survivable level for humans and the dinosaurs* inherit the earth.
*birds
Of course, in the end, the Earth will be fine. Us humans will extinct ourselves along with all sorts of other creatures. But nature will regenerate and a new beautiful planet emerge without the locusts (also known as humans).
Personally, I find that people who are not interested in nature are not worth knowing.
It's interesting isn't it?
Our village has a massive problem with people parking on verges. I cannot get my head around the mentality that would dream of turning a patch of green into a mudbath of tyre tracks, but that's what lots of people seem to have no problem doing.
Again, this is an academic debate beyond the scope of the non-specialist. There have been at least 6 extinction events, saying that the current losses show the worst ever is a statement not a fact.
I don't think this is going to happen anytime soon.
Agriculture supports 6+ billion people, by any measure that's a massive success.
https://www.fao.org/home/search/en/?q=climate+change+water+and+food+security
I didn't say "worst ever" I said "rivals".
That's true, hence my lack of willing to get into an academic debate with people who are not experts.
https://ourworldindata.org/soil-lifespans
If you are not willing to get into such a debate given the lack of experts, then what was the point of your opening post?
It usually helps to follow the money. If someone is getting super rich you can be pretty sure they are selfish when it comes to other people and the natural environment.
It's sad, and I used to get very angry. But in my old age I've become resigned to the fact that we are a horrible species.
I am unclear why you think that I believe there is no problems in the Wye valley. That's far from true.
I read some of the scientific work which is being studied in this area only last week.
I cannot comment on whether specific farms can or should be held responsible for pollution in the Wye, not least because it's a legal case and it would not be right to discuss it flippantly.
You seem to be unwilling to discuss anything that challenges your thesis.
How would you suggest we discuss it? There is contention amongst scientists who study such things that the current species extinction event compares to past events, largely because establishing the data for species loss in the geological past is extremely difficult.
Here are some papers on the topic, I look forward to your professional view on the topic and why yours is better informed than those who wrote peer reviewed science on it:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.70476
https://link.springer.com/article/10.15252/embr.202154193
However:
And
I'm not sure how you got to that conclusion.
Also this
https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(25)00002-3
The whole notion of a mass extinction event originates largely from EO Wilson. Who said this
There is dispute about all of these numbers as well as an internal logical problem. If science only knows 20% of all species then by definition it cannot also know that the rate of extinction of them is 100 to 1000 times greater than the baseline rate, particularly as the "baseline" is never specified.
Wilson comments from here: https://eowilsonfoundation.org/eow/the-8-million-species-we-dont-know/
As a footnote, EO Wilson wrote some amazingly powerful things that I have always found engaging. But just saying things does not make them true, even if you are the greatest ant ecologist that ever lived.
We haven't got time for people to stand up and notice it. Hindsight is a luxury we don't have. We need to take precautions, some of which we won't need, because repair will be impossible or infinitely expensive.
If there is time, and we still have the opportunity to give up our addiction to hindsight.
I confess I am not an expert in environmental problems, but I am a keen observer. This is what I have been seeing over the years.
Mrs Gramps and I moved to the Palouse over 35 years ago during a hard winter. We had to dig through three feet of snow to get to our house (we moved the first of January). It was a bitter cold winter that year with temperatures dropping to -20F several times. Compare that to this winter. I did not have to get out my snow shovels at all this last winter at all. It did not get below 0F either.
The spring after we had moved in saw all the local reservoirs in the area at full pool. This year the one major reservoir from which much of the industrial agricultural farms in Idaho relies is at 61% pool this spring. This will mean they will have to stop irrigation probably the end of July just before much of the crops will ripen.
Reservoirs throughout the American West will be in crisis mode this year. The Colorado system is disastrously low, almost at 0 pool which means they will not be able to provide electrical power to Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and California. Agricultural use will be very limited there.
Coming back to Eastern Washington where I live over ninety percent of our electrical power is hydro. The power company here is saying they will have to begin importing electricity by the end of July. By importing we will have to import through Canada or rely coal generated power from obsolete coal fired plants which were slated to be shut down by now.
90% of the land around here is owned by national insurance companies. The farmers around here mostly lease the land from these companies. We are talking about very large grain fields. Fortunately we have gotten enough rain for the crops to make it to harvest which begins in July but experts are saying the yields will be quite low compared to what they were 30 years ago, Farmers around here pride themselves in never every having a complete crop failure, but there have been a number of lean years, and they seem to be coming with increasing frequency.
A big issue around here is the forest. When we moved here 30 years ago we could expect about two weeks in August to be smoky, but that was mostly to grass farmers burning the grass on their land to shock the grasses into producing seed for harvest. Now forest fires have taken over. Thirty years ago, late August and September was the forest fire season. Now we can expect forest fires to start up at any time. And they burn longer and far hotter.
The forests around here are managed as a large industrial crop from which we produce lumber and paper products. When they burn, those products cannot be produced.
To be sure, the climate around here goes through cycles, our dry cycle is called El Nino. The wet cycle is called La Nina. We were supposed to have had a La Nina cycle these past four years, but it was extremely poor--very weak. This year we are to enter an El Nino cycle. Normally they go through four year cycles, but the El Ninos are getting stronger and lasting longer. La Ninas are getting weaker and shorter.
No debate, just observations.
Now 100 years ago, the American West and Midwest, went through a catastrophic period for industrial agriculture. It is known as the dust bowl years. Farmers had been plowing through native grasslands at alarming rates. Their practices changed the climate tremendously. It took a while to pull through it, but in order to come out on the other side, farming practices had to change. Crop rotations, contour farming, allowing the land to rest every few years helped.
We are now going though the driest years in over the past 100. I would like to know how we are going to get though these years. I think it will take more than just a few changes in farming practices this time.
Basketactortale will probably scoff at the J curve climatologists have been talking about. From where s/he lives, s/he might not have experienced it. But from were I live, I see it.
Like what?
There are entire populations of people who live on islands in the South Pacific who I feel pretty assured are taking all of this "catastrophic" stuff pretty seriously.
I guess it's not a catastrophe for me, living in the American midwest, but I can understand that "catastrophe" is relative to where you are in time and space.
Wait until the Yellowstone caldron explodes. You will be downwind from it.
In all seriousness, how is your water table fairing? I see the Ogalla Aquifer is likely to dry up in 20 years. https://climatecosmos.com/climate-news/ogallala-aquifer-could-dry-up-in-20-years-yet-its-rarely-discussed.
I also have seen a number of articles dealing with the forever chemicals that are being found in the Ohio Aquifer.
I guess you won't need to worry about the Yellowstone Caldron for maybe the next 5 to 50,000 years plus.
The thread shows Basketactorate posted his last message at 4:04 pm, London time. Perhaps s/he had a hot date last night. S/He should be waking up soon. I guess I could wait till tomorrow morning (for me) to see if the ghost reappears.
I am not clear what you want me to say. You clearly think things about me that are not true, I do not and have never denied climate change nor do I challenge your observations. How this relates to anything I wrote, I cannot imagine.
Also why do you think I am "ghosting"? I have posted several times on this thread, I have not replied to you a) because I was asleep and b) because your post was so wrong-headed that there did not seem to be anything there to reply to.
Another example is that there's regular discussion about soil biodiversity, mainly meaning the microbes. There's a suggestion that fewer microbes means less general health of the soil, which relates to the notion of "ecosystem services"; which suggests that soils with a reduced diversity of microbes are able to do less things in an ecosystem.
There is some evidence that this is a true phenomena, however it is often extrapolated widely from quite localised data.
To review the claim of the OP was
and if that were true industrial agriculture would be collapsing.
Correct me if I misunderstood.
One problem with that assertion is a system like industrial agriculture can be highly productive right now but degrading foundations can make future productivity more difficult.
My point is I live smack dab in an area that is highly industrialized agriculture and the foundations for its existence is indeed collapsing.
Over 30 plus years of observations have shown me
Snowpacks are shrinking which means less irrigation water resulting in lower yields.
Reservoirs throughout the west are much below averages which will lead to emergency fallowing of land.
Longer Fire Seasons leading to less lumber and pulp for paper products.
I also mentioned how changes to El Nino and La Nina cycle changes are impacting agricultural production in my area.
I am not trying to prove industrial agriculture has already collapsed. I am trying to show that the environmental conditions industrial agriculture depends on are already deteriorating.
Calling my examples wrong-headed misses the point. My examples weren't about ideology; they were about real-world stresses I am seeing that farmers are already having to deal with. If these trends continue--and I do not see them changing in the near future--Western Industrial Agriculture will collapse.
@Basketactortale, you have said you do not have time to debate non experts in these areas, but I am still wondering what is your expertise?
Please do find some scientific papers that support your view.
Who will think of the natural environment?
Or to take an example closer to home, for me: there is little research done on how to help late-diagnosed neurodivergent adults. But this doesn't mean I can wait for the research to be done to address my own neurodivergence: I have to try what is available, and see what improves my life.
I understand your inclination and respect your knowledge, but I feel that the situation doesn't leave time for the body of research that you are talking about to accrue before we make decisions. Rather, we have to abandon caution and try lots of things, and keep doing them for long enough to see what is working. This involves treating the current generation as an enormous test group, but rather as with earlier researchers into vaccines, what choice do we have but to experiment on ourselves if we want to survive? We have already used up the time we had to proceed otherwise, working harder on business as usual, rather than putting an alternative in place before it was needed.
I think that one is pretty remote, though if it happens we're all toast anyway.
Climate change is going to come sooner. And yeah, water use is going to be a big deal everywhere, I think.
Water rights are already a big political fight out west, I expect that could become a big deal globally.
Just because I was addressing the pending collapse of industrial agriculture which Basketactortale brought up does not mean I am not concerned about the natural environment. Fact is the stresses on the natural environment which I have listed in part are the foundations for modern agriculture.
I have mentioned declining snowpacks in the west resulting in diminished water throughout the region. There are the increasing wildfires that are burning hotter and longer and releasing that much more carbon and other elements into the atmosphere. I can mention the decline in the fisheries all up and down the West Coast. Fact is, the Pacific Northwest has closed off the spring chinook season this year. As a kid, I can remember how loaded the rivers would be with those red backs. Birders are telling me they are seeing species that have not usually come this far north.
Point is, everything is interconnected. We cannot have a healthy agriculture without a healthy natural environment.
Although considered far left they resemble elements of the alt right.
Oh, and no “War Toys” until they discover the bow and arrow. Knew a kid like that who was very dangerous.
"Crunchy" is actually an American term, derived from "granola crunchy" - ie someone who made their own granola rather than buying commercial cereal, back when that was unusual. I generally hear it used in the same way as @North East Quine by self-identifying "crunchy" people who are a bit hippyish but still normal. "Greenie" I assume just refers to someone concerned with "green issues" - I don't think it's a UK term so much as just a descriptor @Basketactortale came up with, maybe for people linked to the Green Party.
I'm not aware that it's less common in the UK than elsewhere - and have certainly seen academic work on 'cosmic right' 'querdenken' style formations that indicate it's an ambient presence across multiple countries.