Just as a first note, the atmosphere is about 20% oxygen, the fraction of that which gets turned over by plants in any given year is by comparison tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny. For reference, CO2, which all of that oxygen released by the Amazon is made from, is .04% of the atmosphere. You could kill every plant on earth, and we’d probably have enough oxygen for all of the animals to survive for longer than mankind has existed—though you would get carbon dioxide poisoning at a much earlier point. But if the only CO2 was coming from respiration, it would still probably take tens of thousands of years before the concentration was dangerous.
The earth running out of oxygen is literally not something that anyone should worry about. This has a relationship to why a lot of people don’t treat climate change as a serious existential threat. Perhaps there is some reason to think that it is that I haven’t heard—but most of the claims that it is super dangerous that I hear are like ‘if the Amazon burns down, we’ll all run out of oxygen and suffocate’—and that simply won’t happen.
Thanks for helping me get informed. I was under the impression that (and this is a separate thread) planting trees was a viable initiative to fight climate change, and by extension the survival of the amazon rainforest was a significant climate change initiative? I guess I’m wondering if along these lines as well, if climate change is important on the world stage, then the health of the rainforest would be as well?
**Thanks for correcting me about the oxygen consumption line—that is what I said and it was misguided
“Viable initiative” is concept that isn’t useful. What we care about are “effective strategies”. Whether or not planting trees is effective depends on how much it costs and how much other strategies cost.
I think its’ useful in exactly the context hereisonhand is asking about it “Hey guys I had this crazy idea, could it work at all?” is definitely both a legitimate and useful question, before saying “OK, we’ve determined it could work, does it make sense as a strategy to try.”
I think it’s dangerous to say “Don’t ask about the viability of your crazy ideas on LW, because we only care about the relative value of ideas.” I know this is in fact not what you were saying, but I could easily see my S1 interpreting this that way if this was the response I got to one of my first posts on the site.
Planting trees for the sake of the environment is not a crazy idea. It’s a mainstream idea that’s held by many people. You can buy a beer and in the process support protecting space in the rainforest.
hereisonhand spoke about him being able to extend that idea directly into “survival of the amazon rainforest was a significant climate change initiative”.
To me that suggests he sees viability as the same thing as it being a good action. It does look to me like reasoning about public interventions without the EA mental models that are needed in the context to reason well.
Yup, it was a quick thought I put to page and I will quickly and easily concede that 1) my initial idea wasn’t expressed very clearly, 2) the way it was expressed is best interpreted by a reader in a way that makes it non-sensicle (“what does it mean to say oxygen is produced” and I didn’t really tie my initial writing to climate change in the way I wanted too so what am I even talking about), 3) even the way I clarified my idea later mixed some thoughts that really should be separated out (viable != effective), and 4) I have some learning to do in the area of EA mental models and reasoning about public interventions. Not my best work.
Reflection:
I’m messing around with shortform as a way to kinda throw ideas on a page. This idea didn’t work out too well towards generating productive discussion as upon reflection, the idea wasn’t super coherent, let alone pointing towards anything true. However, I got a lot more engagement than I expected, which points to something of value from the medium. I think the course forward is probably to 1) keep experimenting with short form because I gain something from having my incoherence pointed out to me and there’s a chance I will be more coherent and useful in the future, and 2) maybe take 5 minutes to reread my shortform posts before I post them (just because it’s short form doesn’t mean it can be nonsense)
Just as a first note, the atmosphere is about 20% oxygen, the fraction of that which gets turned over by plants in any given year is by comparison tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny. For reference, CO2, which all of that oxygen released by the Amazon is made from, is .04% of the atmosphere. You could kill every plant on earth, and we’d probably have enough oxygen for all of the animals to survive for longer than mankind has existed—though you would get carbon dioxide poisoning at a much earlier point. But if the only CO2 was coming from respiration, it would still probably take tens of thousands of years before the concentration was dangerous.
The earth running out of oxygen is literally not something that anyone should worry about. This has a relationship to why a lot of people don’t treat climate change as a serious existential threat. Perhaps there is some reason to think that it is that I haven’t heard—but most of the claims that it is super dangerous that I hear are like ‘if the Amazon burns down, we’ll all run out of oxygen and suffocate’—and that simply won’t happen.
Thanks for helping me get informed. I was under the impression that (and this is a separate thread) planting trees was a viable initiative to fight climate change, and by extension the survival of the amazon rainforest was a significant climate change initiative? I guess I’m wondering if along these lines as well, if climate change is important on the world stage, then the health of the rainforest would be as well?
**Thanks for correcting me about the oxygen consumption line—that is what I said and it was misguided
“Viable initiative” is concept that isn’t useful. What we care about are “effective strategies”. Whether or not planting trees is effective depends on how much it costs and how much other strategies cost.
Oftentimes when an idea seems crazy, the first step is a quick back of the napkin viability assessment.
You are right that there are contexts where viability is a useful notion. It just isn’t here.
I think its’ useful in exactly the context hereisonhand is asking about it “Hey guys I had this crazy idea, could it work at all?” is definitely both a legitimate and useful question, before saying “OK, we’ve determined it could work, does it make sense as a strategy to try.”
I think it’s dangerous to say “Don’t ask about the viability of your crazy ideas on LW, because we only care about the relative value of ideas.” I know this is in fact not what you were saying, but I could easily see my S1 interpreting this that way if this was the response I got to one of my first posts on the site.
Planting trees for the sake of the environment is not a crazy idea. It’s a mainstream idea that’s held by many people. You can buy a beer and in the process support protecting space in the rainforest.
hereisonhand spoke about him being able to extend that idea directly into “survival of the amazon rainforest was a significant climate change initiative”.
To me that suggests he sees viability as the same thing as it being a good action. It does look to me like reasoning about public interventions without the EA mental models that are needed in the context to reason well.
Yup, it was a quick thought I put to page and I will quickly and easily concede that 1) my initial idea wasn’t expressed very clearly, 2) the way it was expressed is best interpreted by a reader in a way that makes it non-sensicle (“what does it mean to say oxygen is produced” and I didn’t really tie my initial writing to climate change in the way I wanted too so what am I even talking about), 3) even the way I clarified my idea later mixed some thoughts that really should be separated out (viable != effective), and 4) I have some learning to do in the area of EA mental models and reasoning about public interventions. Not my best work.
Reflection:
I’m messing around with shortform as a way to kinda throw ideas on a page. This idea didn’t work out too well towards generating productive discussion as upon reflection, the idea wasn’t super coherent, let alone pointing towards anything true. However, I got a lot more engagement than I expected, which points to something of value from the medium. I think the course forward is probably to 1) keep experimenting with short form because I gain something from having my incoherence pointed out to me and there’s a chance I will be more coherent and useful in the future, and 2) maybe take 5 minutes to reread my shortform posts before I post them (just because it’s short form doesn’t mean it can be nonsense)