Reddit Reddit reviews Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future

We found 7 Reddit comments about Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Science & Math
Books
Biological Sciences
Paleontology
Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future
Check price on Amazon

7 Reddit comments about Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future:

u/CynicalDandelion · 8 pointsr/collapse

Yes. I read Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky when it came out in 2008. I remember wondering why everyone wasn't talking about it.

u/STL_Tim · 6 pointsr/collapse

Ah yes, the Canfield Ocean. Purple anoxic ocean under a green sky, such pretty colors. To see such a thing, would be both beautiful and cosmically horrific.

u/MisanthropicScott · 2 pointsr/antinatalism

>>>> But, when I watch wildlife, I also see joy, love, and beauty that is not present on the moon.

I'm not sure why you're mostly fixated on beauty from this sentence and are largely ignoring the joy and are completely ignoring the love.

> What i want to know is, what antinatalist reasoning could apply to only humans, other than pure misanthropy?

I've been talking about balance. Is there more pain and suffering or more pleasure, joy, and love.

In humans, I also add in the deliberate and calculated and unnecessary cruelty both to ourselves and to other sentiences. I think this is something that exists to some degree in some other species but is rare outside of humans, especially the deliberate cruelty for its own sake.

So, within our own species, I may observe that over a billion people are worried about such horrific problems as obesity and high taxes while another more than a billion are worried about little things like being starving or chronically hungry. (I hope the sarcasm in this comparison of problems is obvious.)

But, beyond that, I see the deliberate and calculated cruelty of CAFOs. And then I see the wanton habitat destruction and pollution. And, I see a hundred million sharks each year having their fins cut off and being thrown back into the water still alive but guaranteed to die a slow horrible death.

Birds and turtles die in huge numbers from eating plastic. Ocean acidification is going to cause the collapse of the base of the entire food chain in the ocean because pteropods can't form their shells.

I see the entirety of the holocene extinction becoming minor by comparison to what is coming from climate change. As warming and freshwater melt from ice sheets stops the ocean conveyor, the ocean will become anoxic from the bottom up. Sulfur producing bacteria will thrive in the anoxic depths, but little else will. As the anoxic layer becomes thicker, rising to the surface, the sulfur from these bacteria will be released into the global atmosphere. H2S gas (the smell of rotten eggs) will be released in toxic quantities. The sky will turn green, literally.

As a natural catastrophe that happened 250 million years ago, this was truly horrific and killed off 95% of the multicellular species on the planet at the time.

This time, we humans are causing it!

Under a Green Sky: Global Warming, the Mass Extinctions of the Past, and What They Can Tell Us About Our Future by Peter D. Ward

So, yes. I think humans are different. Humans are a literal catastrophe. In the geological record, if any future species exists to decode it, they will see this time as a catastrophic event in the history of the planet. Perhaps they will wonder how it was all caused by a species that looks a whole lot like a laundry detergent bottle and how that created all of the nuclear waste.

> Second, how do you know that the animals value [joy and pleasure and] beauty in the way we humans do?

I don't. But, before you kill off every sentient being on the planet, wouldn't it pay for you to be sure that they don't?

Yes. I know you are not really planning to annihilate all sentient life on earth. Nor am I actually going to cause human extinction. But, if human extinction is my hope and you are antinatalist for all species, I can only assume your hope would be for all sentient life to go extinct.

> And third, why is [joy and pleasure and] beauty so valuable, that it justifies all the pointless animal lives and all the pain that comes with it?

Because I think that the joy and pleasure can and usually does outweigh the pain and suffering for most animals that have the luxury of living the life for which they evolved in as close to a natural state as possible. And, that is where I personally find the beauty. The beauty is not a justification, just an observation. It is the joy and pleasure that make life worth living.

> You place huge value on beauty.

Actually no. You picked beauty out of a list of three items and fixated on it.

> I dont want to kill animals.

What do you want from your antinatalist views that include animals?

What do you expect to get from telling deer they should not breed?

> What i want to know is why their lives are any better than ours?

It's about the balance. I think I've now explained my view as best I can.

> You reason that humans extinction would be a good thing.

Yes. I think I explained the reason. We cause a tremendous amount of pain and suffering that totally overpowers both the joy and pleasure in the lives of the privileged among us as well as the joy and pleasure experienced by our dogs, cats, and other well-cared-for pets where people do care for their pets lovingly (not a global thing).

> Why does that reasoning not apply to animals?

It is my opinion that the balance is very different among the other animals that aren't destroying the biosphere and that aren't locking their prey animals in CAFOs and that aren't cruel in a deliberate and calculated way and that don't take pleasure in cruelty for its own sake.

> Yes, we dont have the right to outright kill them. But thats not what you plan to do with the humans either?

Correct. I am a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. The emphasis is on voluntary.

> You claim something has to be done to humans,

I'm not sure what you mean by this. But, I sure as hell don't think I ever said it.

Something will happen to humans. I don't believe we are capable of coming into balance with the rest of the biosphere. I think we will cause our own extinction. I think we will cause the extinction of a great many other sentiences with us (and have already made quite a start on this).

But, I didn't say that I was going to start a nuclear war or some such.

Something will be done to humans by the laws of ecosystems, not by anyone who follows the same ideals I follow.

> why do you not think whatever that it shouldnt be done to other animals?

I hope you agree that this question no longer makes sense in light of my answer above.

> Yes, the earth is more beautiful than the moon, but what does that have to do with anything?

Why do you think the earth is more beautiful than the moon? What is the difference between the two?

As an philanthropic antinatalist, who seems to see only the pain and suffering in life, or at least sees the balance tipped toward the pain and suffering, I would expect you to think that the earth is a vile cesspool of misery. If you do not, why are you a philanthropic antinatalist?

u/benjamindees · 2 pointsr/collapse

Even if you don't believe "Venus" is the worst case (which is reasonable considering that Earth is not Venus already despite massive climate change over its history), this is still a pretty bad scenario.

u/karabeckian · 2 pointsr/collapse

Check out Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky. Here's a talk.

u/ollokot · 2 pointsr/environment

On this particular topic, here are some books that I have read (sorry, mere comments from them will not do them justice):