Opinion: What I Saw in Yosemite Was Devastating(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Opinion: What I Saw in Yosemite Was Devastating
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/22/opinion/yosemite-west-coast-smoke.html
38 comments
> our planet will adapt. We, humans, won't be able to.
We are by far Nature’s most adaptable creation, we live everywhere from the harshest deserts to the frozen tundra. I find the idea that we won’t adapt remarkably laughable.
We are by far Nature’s most adaptable creation, we live everywhere from the harshest deserts to the frozen tundra. I find the idea that we won’t adapt remarkably laughable.
Exactly. We'll survive, as a species, even if many will suffer - droughts, famine, mass migrations, conflicts stemming from both, extreme hot and cold weather in houses designed for more temperate climates for people used to temperate climates.
Or to put it more harshly, the wealthy will be able to adapt. A lot of people will suffer and/or die.
Or to put it more harshly, the wealthy will be able to adapt. A lot of people will suffer and/or die.
> Or to put it more harshly, the wealthy will be able to adapt. A lot of people will suffer and/or die.
Sounds like evolution :/
Sounds like evolution :/
Are you implying all those Inuits and desert tribes are clearly loaded?
When inuits and desert tribes adapted, my understanding is they were either able to adapt on their own timeline (moving gradually into harsher climates as they figured out how to stay in their summer camps longer into the fall) or they suffered immense population loss during the move, and it was a small number of survivors that rebuilt the population. There aren't a lot of records from when humans first moved to now-populated parts of the world, so I could be wrong.
That said, climate change is going to force us all into rapid adaption as plant and animal life die off, glacial streams and rivers dry up for good, sea level rises, etc. It will be easier to survive if you can afford the more expensive food and water, can afford to install the most-effective fire break around your home, can afford the expensive land in still-habitable places.
That said, climate change is going to force us all into rapid adaption as plant and animal life die off, glacial streams and rivers dry up for good, sea level rises, etc. It will be easier to survive if you can afford the more expensive food and water, can afford to install the most-effective fire break around your home, can afford the expensive land in still-habitable places.
Inuits and Bedouins are at or near (or some meaningful fraction of) carrying capacity for their environment.
Reducing (formerly) temperate-area population density to Inuit levels would be catastrophic.
Yes, humans as a species would survive. But that's about all you can say.
Reducing (formerly) temperate-area population density to Inuit levels would be catastrophic.
Yes, humans as a species would survive. But that's about all you can say.
Pretty sure they’re implying that in this day and age wealthy people can more easily move/acquire resources to survive than those with fewer.
The thinking though feels a little narrow. If the non-wealthy (i.e. the vast majority of the planet) are driven to tribalism, rioting, war or otherwise die off what sustains the "wealthy"? A vast underground bomb-hardened prepper cache?
The wealthy fleeing global warming feels like it will merely be a footnote in Chapter 1 of what will eventually play out.
I worry not simply for the planet but for my children, my grandchildren, and yours, all of ours, as well.
The wealthy fleeing global warming feels like it will merely be a footnote in Chapter 1 of what will eventually play out.
I worry not simply for the planet but for my children, my grandchildren, and yours, all of ours, as well.
Humans have been around 6M years. The Earth has been around 4.5B years. I find the idea “we” will adapt because of humans’ success in adapting over a minute fraction of the Earth’s existence remarkably laughable.
People are also concerned about quality of life, not just survival.
People are also concerned about quality of life, not just survival.
We adapted to its harshest climates over a remarkably small timeframe, something that took other species eons. I think you’ve made my point.
The dataset is too small to “make” any point. 6M years out of 4.5B years( or even more if you expand out into the universe) is a fluke.
The climate can change faster than we can, and we can destroy each other or set each other pretty far back technologically. Either way, there are myriad reasons that the relatively recent past need not be indicative of the future.
The climate can change faster than we can, and we can destroy each other or set each other pretty far back technologically. Either way, there are myriad reasons that the relatively recent past need not be indicative of the future.
It's not about timescales, it's about technology. We're sophisticated enough to maintain populations in pretty much every environment at this point, albeit at greater cost depending on which environment.
As for quality of life, those unwilling to adjust their expectations will filter themselves out. There are plenty of anti-natalists on Reddit proudly proclaiming they'll never have kids because the world already sucks too much. Well fine, but don't think everyone's going to go that route. Humanity got by for most of its existence with essentially no economic growth or quality of life improvements. Would suck to go back to that, but the species would continue.
As for quality of life, those unwilling to adjust their expectations will filter themselves out. There are plenty of anti-natalists on Reddit proudly proclaiming they'll never have kids because the world already sucks too much. Well fine, but don't think everyone's going to go that route. Humanity got by for most of its existence with essentially no economic growth or quality of life improvements. Would suck to go back to that, but the species would continue.
“Time” is a parameter in the equation for maintaining an environment suitable for human life.
See Easter Island’s history for an example.
See Easter Island’s history for an example.
Can we please just stop laughing for a minute? We pretty much dominate the Earth, it's odd you don't think we have been adapting every step of the way and will continue to do so far more competently than almost any other organism thanks to our reasoning power and its fruit, a highly capable advanced civilization. If the next pandemic hits and 7 billion people are wiped out that's adapting too because 1 billion survived. Please stop conflating improving quality of life vs survivability of our specie which is what the discussion about adaptability is always anchored in.
> Can we please just stop laughing for a minute?
It was tongue in cheek because the person I responded to wrote that.
> We pretty much dominate the Earth, it's odd you don't think we have been adapting every step of the way and will continue to do so far more competently than almost any other organism thanks to our reasoning power and its fruit, a highly capable advanced civilization.
Humans have been adapting, but not “every step of the way” was my point. It very well could be that we are living in a favorable span of a few million years out of few billion that are inhospitable to human life, with no guarantee of innovating technology to outmaneuver nature. The claim is humans’ survival has a large luck component to it.
> If the next pandemic hits and 7 billion people are wiped out that's adapting too because 1 billion survived.
That is not what most people mean when they say “adapted”.
> Please stop conflating improving quality of life vs survivability of our specie which is what the discussion about adaptability is always anchored in.
Again, the claim is that humans have been around for a microscopic amount of time in the grand scheme of things, and there are things outside of our control that could cause extinction level events at any time, to which humans would not have the time/intelligence to avoid. For example, asteroids/solar flare/disease/other things changes in the habitat that are greater than us.
It was tongue in cheek because the person I responded to wrote that.
> We pretty much dominate the Earth, it's odd you don't think we have been adapting every step of the way and will continue to do so far more competently than almost any other organism thanks to our reasoning power and its fruit, a highly capable advanced civilization.
Humans have been adapting, but not “every step of the way” was my point. It very well could be that we are living in a favorable span of a few million years out of few billion that are inhospitable to human life, with no guarantee of innovating technology to outmaneuver nature. The claim is humans’ survival has a large luck component to it.
> If the next pandemic hits and 7 billion people are wiped out that's adapting too because 1 billion survived.
That is not what most people mean when they say “adapted”.
> Please stop conflating improving quality of life vs survivability of our specie which is what the discussion about adaptability is always anchored in.
Again, the claim is that humans have been around for a microscopic amount of time in the grand scheme of things, and there are things outside of our control that could cause extinction level events at any time, to which humans would not have the time/intelligence to avoid. For example, asteroids/solar flare/disease/other things changes in the habitat that are greater than us.
Adaptability does not mean 100% survivability. If a billion people survive what do you call that? Extinction level event that did not extinct? Instead of saying humans are not adaptable you probably are trying to say be scared you tiny creatures you could die any moment, which is true but you’re not saying anything other than what religions have been stuffing into people’s heads for thousands of years, so I get worried. I don’t like to argue this point with you as I see you’re just repeating yourself and not seriously engaging with the points I raised.
I interpreted friseurtermin's usage of the word "adapt" to mean living in a future with similar or few sacrifices to the modern standards of living. I think when most people express worry about adapting to changes in the environment, they do not mean 1B out of 7B surviving, they mean large portions of the population losing access to clean water, hospitable temperatures, quality and easy access to food, etc.
For example, we can adapt to volatility in rain by developing irrigation, or volatility in soil quality by using synthetic fertilizer. But you cannot adapt to zero water, or extreme weather, or poor air quality, at least not without war, which also creates its own problems.
And yes, some will survive and "adapt" in that sense, but the notable difference is "adapting" in the recent past meant innovations that did not necessarily take away from others (at least in the short term). In the future, it would be more zero sum, and hence uglier.
For example, we can adapt to volatility in rain by developing irrigation, or volatility in soil quality by using synthetic fertilizer. But you cannot adapt to zero water, or extreme weather, or poor air quality, at least not without war, which also creates its own problems.
And yes, some will survive and "adapt" in that sense, but the notable difference is "adapting" in the recent past meant innovations that did not necessarily take away from others (at least in the short term). In the future, it would be more zero sum, and hence uglier.
Adapt to weather is easy. Adapting our thinking...well...hasn't happened yet. We continue to bury ourselves in trash and consume our home to death.
Adaptation says nothing about the quality of life and a life worth living.
If you look at it from a global perspective, there are more forests now, up by 7% since 1982. Some regions see decreased life, others increased life:
"Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9
"Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9
I don’t want understate the impact of climate change, but if the author is comparing the dryness of 2021 specifically to 1993… 1993 was the 5th wettest year in California since the 1930s, and 2021 is a drought year.
The changes he's observing are not just from one year of drought. He specifically highlights a fire in 2018 leaving hills blackened and bare. In summer, the water comes not from rainfall but glaciers that are supposed to build up during winter. It's not just from this year.
That’s an even better example of my point. The size and frequency of wildfires overall is increasing, but the probability of a fire striking one particular area in a given 10 year period (ie, burn scar still obvious) is still very low.
One point the author also made was the impact of insects (perhaps bark beetles?) are having on the trees and attributed to the warmer temperatures allowing them to thrive and wreak havoc
I can certainly relate. I grew up a few hours away from Yosemite. I went there many times growing up as a kid in the 90s.
I moved away from California back in 2010. On a trip back home a couple of years ago, I visited Yosemite for the first time in many years.
I felt the same and couldn't believe what it was like. The valley filled to the brim with hours-long traffic jams—everything filled with smoke.
It was all very different from how I remembered it.
I moved away from California back in 2010. On a trip back home a couple of years ago, I visited Yosemite for the first time in many years.
I felt the same and couldn't believe what it was like. The valley filled to the brim with hours-long traffic jams—everything filled with smoke.
It was all very different from how I remembered it.
And yet, most of humanity still seems to be only vaguely aware of how much things are breaking all around us. And politicians are unfortunately not an exception.
[deleted]
> “Emerson, Thoreau, Fuller — their accounts of nature are that it’s perfect,” Dr. Strong said. “You would go and learn from this limitless teacher. Nature was pure truth. It offered access to the infinite, a stand-in for God.”
I enjoy being the literal one here - this is not aligned to what we observe. Nature can inspire, but most of the legwork is done by humans in labs and houses nestled in the largest of cities. Most of the pinnacles of human achievement (the law, heavier than air flight, undersea transport, the highway and rail networks, spaceflight, mastering radiowaves and digital communication) we have surpassed what nature could teach us by superior control of energy, theory and materials.
It isn't nature that propelled us into the modern era. It was cities. Pretty much everyone with the means chooses to stay in the heart of a city with rare visits to nature because cities are just more supportive of humans, more interesting and more prosperous.
There are people who get a lot out of going to visit nature. They are relatively rare.
I enjoy being the literal one here - this is not aligned to what we observe. Nature can inspire, but most of the legwork is done by humans in labs and houses nestled in the largest of cities. Most of the pinnacles of human achievement (the law, heavier than air flight, undersea transport, the highway and rail networks, spaceflight, mastering radiowaves and digital communication) we have surpassed what nature could teach us by superior control of energy, theory and materials.
It isn't nature that propelled us into the modern era. It was cities. Pretty much everyone with the means chooses to stay in the heart of a city with rare visits to nature because cities are just more supportive of humans, more interesting and more prosperous.
There are people who get a lot out of going to visit nature. They are relatively rare.
It's odd some don't think we have been adapting every step of the way and will continue to do so far more competently than almost any other organism thanks to our reasoning power and its fruit, a highly capable advanced civilization. If the next pandemic hits and 7 billion people are wiped out that's adapting too because 1 billion survived. Alarmists need stop conflating improving quality of life vs survivability of our specie which is what the discussion about adaptability is always anchored in.
He should see what they’ve done to Manhattan Island.
This shows that we should take good care of our surroundings. But I still do believe that the climate will still take a hit in the following years. We should think of a long term remedy for this one.
You think that's devastating? Go check out what happens at 6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd, San Ramon, CA.
It's entirely possible they could both be devastating. It's not zero-sum. However, I have to say, I didn't actually go there. I can't figure out what you're talking about. Seems to be the site of "Chevron Federal Credit Union". I can't see that anything in particular really happened.
It’s also funny that the author of the OpEd flew (presumably) her son from NYC to see the place, needing the services of Chevron or companies like it.
Moving mass requires energy. Using energy results in an increase in entropy (heat). We went from 2 billion to 8 billion people in 100 years, each life moving exponentially more mass than the generation before it.
Absent the discovery of a miraculously efficient energy source, there were only ever 2 options. Either force reduction in consumption per capita and/or capitas, or live in the future we are living in now. The former was never going to be politically popular, and I suspect the author of the OpEd also would not like to be told she cannot take her child to see Yosemite from NYC via current methods of transport.
Moving mass requires energy. Using energy results in an increase in entropy (heat). We went from 2 billion to 8 billion people in 100 years, each life moving exponentially more mass than the generation before it.
Absent the discovery of a miraculously efficient energy source, there were only ever 2 options. Either force reduction in consumption per capita and/or capitas, or live in the future we are living in now. The former was never going to be politically popular, and I suspect the author of the OpEd also would not like to be told she cannot take her child to see Yosemite from NYC via current methods of transport.
(throwaway, not connecting my workplace to my main acct.)
I work across the street from 6001 Bollinger and went to check it out on a whim. Looks pretty mundane. What exactly am I supposed to be looking for? Is it the fact that it's a Chevron corporate campus?
I work across the street from 6001 Bollinger and went to check it out on a whim. Looks pretty mundane. What exactly am I supposed to be looking for? Is it the fact that it's a Chevron corporate campus?
Beautiful piece, but that's hardly the whole story. Nature doesn't care about climate change and it couldn't care less about us. Sure, it might kill all the birds, trees, landscapes, but our planet will adapt. We, humans, won't be able to. What we're destroying is our own future, both the beauty in the world and the environment we live in.