Per Blaise Pascal, no they cannot: “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”
We need to keep growing, building, making, taking. Some people seem to really love the bustle and creative destruction. I'm in my 40s, and I've always hated it. When I was a child, I wondered if when I grew up, I would fit naturally into the world the way that so many others seemed to. The answer was no. I don't know why people need to be the way they are. I don't feel comfortable in so many normal situations. The things that bother the animals bother me too, but for most people this is unthinkable in the same way that other modes of thought are unthinkable. (eg, when someone who thinks mostly in words learns that some people think only in pictures)
Many things surprised me there, but it's the relative quiteness that did it the most.
Trains arriving like massive ghosts, cars obeying the speed limit and not a single soul gunning it from the intersection.
Meanwhile back home every night I can hear all kinds of "motoring enthusiasts" abusing their machines so that they won't hear their intrusive thoughts or something. It feels like a zoo in comparison.
Nice philosophising, but it's vehicles. Primarily cars, but not only.
By far the most common and the loudest source of noise, especially in cities, are vehicles, again, primarily cars.
During the pandemic it became painfully obvious how loud cars are. Every time a city closes down streets, the same thing can be noticed. It can be shocking to some, but even the most crowded places on the planet are quite silent when vehicles aren't around. There are some minor exceptions like concerts (duh!) or other huge public gatherings where the noise is the point.
It's going to take a really long time to heal this wound.
> By far the most common and the loudest source of noise, especially in cities, are vehicles, again, primarily cars.
Hugely depends on the city. Where I live it's the cargo trains and airliners. Congestion is too severe for anyone to make significant noise, unless they have modified/dysfunctional exhausts or particularly large engines.
True, but the radius affected by airliners is generally much smaller. Once they're higher than a few thousand meters, you can't really hear them any more.
Cargo trains, I imagine it's similar.
> Congestion is too severe for anyone to make significant noise, unless they have modified/dysfunctional exhausts or particularly large engines.
Large numbers of cars idling make enough noise to basically rival human conversations at regular speech levels. Anything above that (usually anything higher than 30kmph) makes it even worse. I'm not sure it's exponential, but I think it increases supra-linearly afterwards.
I'd like to say that there may be some human cultures that are / were generally respectful to their environment and the animals therein, but it's hard to say how much that was an 'enforced' position based on their level of technological evolution.
I think it's a fundamental rule that the 'rape and pillage' types will always overrun the non-'rape and pillage' types. Much in the same way the sociopaths are able to climb the corporate ladder with relative ease. The nature of nature, seemingly.
> in the months leading up to the referendum, the government and several pro-government public figures and political commentators openly criticized the 2008 Constitution, particularly its recognition of Nature as a subject of rights, emphasizing that no other constitution in the world contains such a provision.
As a kid I remember wondering why all the countries that exist seem to be jerks. Why aren't there any nice countries? Then I thought about it for another 5 seconds and it made a lot more sense.
No I mean if you set up a simulation where there's a bunch of entities who are chill and a bunch of entities who are not chill, and then you run the simulation...
There will almost certainly be more pandemics and they'll probably be worse. The world is getting smaller, and what takes a super high end lab these days (in terms of virus creation) will be done by college students in 20 years.
I firmly believe that William Gibson nailed it with the Jackpot in his recent books:
nothing you could really call a nuclear war. Just everything else, tangled in the changing climate: droughts, water shortages, crop failures, honeybees gone like they almost were now, collapse of other keystone species, every last alpha predator gone, antibiotics doing even less than they already did, diseases that were never quite the one big pandemic but big enough to be historic events in themselves.
The amount of suffering people go through because of noise is pretty insane (some more than others). The most common situation I see in Europe is living in poorly insulated apartments with neighbors who act like they're in a pub 24/7.
Whenever there's a beaching of whales I wonder if a submarine has sailed past blasting sonar so loud the whales have to jump out of the ocean to their death.
We don't have compassion for fellow human beings. I don't think we will ever have compassion for animals who are sensitive to noise.
Example: Diwali is a horrible time to be a stray animal in India. Heck, even my pets hate the festival. But humans will always be self obsessed and say it's for celebration. Sure.
What about the impact of EMF pollution? The book "the invisible rainbow' goes into that, though I don't expect this type of position to be well received in HN. I find it very healthy that this type of "invisible" pollution gets at least some discussion, however. We have to start somewhere.
It's a book that challenges some established views. If that makes it anti-science... It's up to a person whether they judge a book based only on a superficial understanding of it and without having read it.
I recommend it. I can't promise you will like it or find it interesting or agree with any of it. I find it important enough to recommend to people when this type of subject comes up.
>It's a book that challenges some established views.
this doesnt answer the question because you can challenge established views scientifically (i.e., using data and evidence and testing, etc.) or unscientifically by screaming vaccines cause autism or whatever nonsense directly in the face of (and contrary to) data, evidence, and testing.
A lot, I'd hazard the vast majority, of these things are pseudoscience at best (remember "microwaves will give you cancer"?). Does "challenging established views" means presenting hypotheses with empirical evidence or claiming that EMF is from Hell?
Per Blaise Pascal, no they cannot: “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.”
We need to keep growing, building, making, taking. Some people seem to really love the bustle and creative destruction. I'm in my 40s, and I've always hated it. When I was a child, I wondered if when I grew up, I would fit naturally into the world the way that so many others seemed to. The answer was no. I don't know why people need to be the way they are. I don't feel comfortable in so many normal situations. The things that bother the animals bother me too, but for most people this is unthinkable in the same way that other modes of thought are unthinkable. (eg, when someone who thinks mostly in words learns that some people think only in pictures)
You would absolutely love Switzerland.
Many things surprised me there, but it's the relative quiteness that did it the most.
Trains arriving like massive ghosts, cars obeying the speed limit and not a single soul gunning it from the intersection.
Meanwhile back home every night I can hear all kinds of "motoring enthusiasts" abusing their machines so that they won't hear their intrusive thoughts or something. It feels like a zoo in comparison.
Nice philosophising, but it's vehicles. Primarily cars, but not only.
By far the most common and the loudest source of noise, especially in cities, are vehicles, again, primarily cars.
During the pandemic it became painfully obvious how loud cars are. Every time a city closes down streets, the same thing can be noticed. It can be shocking to some, but even the most crowded places on the planet are quite silent when vehicles aren't around. There are some minor exceptions like concerts (duh!) or other huge public gatherings where the noise is the point.
It's going to take a really long time to heal this wound.
Nice philosophising, but it's vehicles. Primarily cars, but not only.
Around here cars are more common, but quiet enough that I rarely notice. Trucks, motorcycles, quads, trains, and boats are all significantly noisier.
> By far the most common and the loudest source of noise, especially in cities, are vehicles, again, primarily cars.
Hugely depends on the city. Where I live it's the cargo trains and airliners. Congestion is too severe for anyone to make significant noise, unless they have modified/dysfunctional exhausts or particularly large engines.
True, but the radius affected by airliners is generally much smaller. Once they're higher than a few thousand meters, you can't really hear them any more.
Cargo trains, I imagine it's similar.
> Congestion is too severe for anyone to make significant noise, unless they have modified/dysfunctional exhausts or particularly large engines.
Large numbers of cars idling make enough noise to basically rival human conversations at regular speech levels. Anything above that (usually anything higher than 30kmph) makes it even worse. I'm not sure it's exponential, but I think it increases supra-linearly afterwards.
You are not alone.
I'd like to say that there may be some human cultures that are / were generally respectful to their environment and the animals therein, but it's hard to say how much that was an 'enforced' position based on their level of technological evolution.
I think it's a fundamental rule that the 'rape and pillage' types will always overrun the non-'rape and pillage' types. Much in the same way the sociopaths are able to climb the corporate ladder with relative ease. The nature of nature, seemingly.
Ecuador has Rights of Nature articles incorporated into their 2008 Constitution [1] effecting national decision making in investment and development.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_nature_in_Ecuador
Yes - the current conservative president organized a referendum which would have allowed him to change it, but it got rejected:
https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/peoples-verdict-why-...
> in the months leading up to the referendum, the government and several pro-government public figures and political commentators openly criticized the 2008 Constitution, particularly its recognition of Nature as a subject of rights, emphasizing that no other constitution in the world contains such a provision.
As a kid I remember wondering why all the countries that exist seem to be jerks. Why aren't there any nice countries? Then I thought about it for another 5 seconds and it made a lot more sense.
I'd very much hesitate characterising countries as a whole.
No I mean if you set up a simulation where there's a bunch of entities who are chill and a bunch of entities who are not chill, and then you run the simulation...
Wait a minute, that rings a bell!
https://ncase.me/trust/
That game / simulation is fantastic. Thanks for sharing, I'm gonna pass it on at work.
More than fantastic, it's beautiful.
By that logic, every single human should be a psychopath by now.
I think that's far from true, going by the simulation game thingy.
Machiavelli nailed this 500 years ago in the prince. If one person always plays by the rules, they will lose to the group who ignore the rules,
I'd like to include "humans" in the list of animals being hurt by anthropogenic noise.
Unfortunately those least responsible will receive the greatest damage.
During the Covid lockdowns in India, I saw birds I had not seen in decades. It was amazing; the skies had cleared up, and nature truly was recovering.
And humanity as-a-whole learnt nothing.
Let's hope there's some more movement in the right direction as a result of _this_ crisis.
There will almost certainly be more pandemics and they'll probably be worse. The world is getting smaller, and what takes a super high end lab these days (in terms of virus creation) will be done by college students in 20 years.
I firmly believe that William Gibson nailed it with the Jackpot in his recent books:
nothing you could really call a nuclear war. Just everything else, tangled in the changing climate: droughts, water shortages, crop failures, honeybees gone like they almost were now, collapse of other keystone species, every last alpha predator gone, antibiotics doing even less than they already did, diseases that were never quite the one big pandemic but big enough to be historic events in themselves.
https://archive.is/F7tiS
The amount of suffering people go through because of noise is pretty insane (some more than others). The most common situation I see in Europe is living in poorly insulated apartments with neighbors who act like they're in a pub 24/7.
Lol have they seen what we do to animals for taste pleasure?
It's not a question of "can we learn to shut up?", it's "will humans ever care enough to even want to learn?".
The amount of noise on this website is ridiculous
Whenever there's a beaching of whales I wonder if a submarine has sailed past blasting sonar so loud the whales have to jump out of the ocean to their death.
Also noise pollution. Also pollution pollution...
Hurting us, too. i have to wear noise cancelling headphones all day to filter out noises from outside my apartment
https://archive.ph/F7tiS
The noise we make is hurting _us_. Decibel levels in cities are unconscionable.
The noise we make is hurting humans too.
We don't have compassion for fellow human beings. I don't think we will ever have compassion for animals who are sensitive to noise.
Example: Diwali is a horrible time to be a stray animal in India. Heck, even my pets hate the festival. But humans will always be self obsessed and say it's for celebration. Sure.
What about the impact of EMF pollution? The book "the invisible rainbow' goes into that, though I don't expect this type of position to be well received in HN. I find it very healthy that this type of "invisible" pollution gets at least some discussion, however. We have to start somewhere.
Is that book actually based in science?
It's a book that challenges some established views. If that makes it anti-science... It's up to a person whether they judge a book based only on a superficial understanding of it and without having read it.
I recommend it. I can't promise you will like it or find it interesting or agree with any of it. I find it important enough to recommend to people when this type of subject comes up.
>It's a book that challenges some established views.
this doesnt answer the question because you can challenge established views scientifically (i.e., using data and evidence and testing, etc.) or unscientifically by screaming vaccines cause autism or whatever nonsense directly in the face of (and contrary to) data, evidence, and testing.
A lot, I'd hazard the vast majority, of these things are pseudoscience at best (remember "microwaves will give you cancer"?). Does "challenging established views" means presenting hypotheses with empirical evidence or claiming that EMF is from Hell?