I have a theory, and I have no evidence to back this theory up.
The increases in anxiety in the general public over the last decade or so is in large part to people knowing we're on an unsustainable path. We're all collectively marching towards the edge of the cliff to jump off together. More people than ever have anxiety because we subconsciously (or consciously) know this.
We're unsustainable with how we pollute and how we treat the environment. How we overfish the oceans. Income inequality rising. Political and cultural polarization widening.
To put things in context; If we wipe from the planet ALL vascular plants, all flowers and trees and ALL vertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, the full pack, plus SIX major phylums of invertebrates including all molluscs, snails, clams and squids, ALL corals and jellyfishes, ALL starfishes and sea urchins, ALL sponges, ALL flatworms, parasites and free living, and every one tunicate described by science...
... after killing all of those, we would have still to wipe 366.000 extra species to reach one million.
We keep hearing that individual actions don't matter and that we need a system change instead. I used to hold the same opinion for the very long time. However, since recently I started to turn around. For the last 30 years governments and politicians have proven incapable to do anything about global heating. What makes us think it will be any different in the coming years. Scientists keep producing report after report after report. Every one grimmer then the preceding. And nothing happens. I begin to believe individual action is the only option left. I don't know the circumstances of every person on the planet and therefor don't know what they can do. But I think I know what HN crowd could do.
- Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train.
- Start working part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest thing to negotiate.
- Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. Don't go all the way vegan, but make meat a special treat not a commodity.
- If you have any investments shift them from fossil to green.
I'm planning to get up in the wee hours tomorrow to check out the Eta Acquarids. We have a magnificent night sky on clear nights here, but there's always a creeping edge of sadness knowing half the world's human population is denied it, and that the cool starlight falls on a dying planet.
> God forbid someone thinks you love nature.
Yes wouldn't that be terrible. I wish though we could ditch the word 'nature' (as if there could be anything else). Similarly with 'the environment' (as if we had another home).
The current forms of government we have in most countries seem to reward only economical success. Any attempts to tackle any environmental issues are invariantly watered down, postponed, or downright dismissed because enacting them has consequences for the electorate, and a large part of the electorate is willing to vote for parties or people that don't quite feel the urgency, or even downright deny the need to act.
Slowly, very slowly, society as a whole, worldwide, may move towards greener choices (eat less meat, improve home insulation, fly less, waste less, recycle more, consume less), but it's not fast enough is it?
Unpopular to say, but people as a group will not change. it won't just happen.
We will destroy part of earth and as a consequence we will engineer a fix for it.
It is maybe an unfortunate thing. But that's how we people work.
We mess up first and clean after.
It's quite unrealistic to expect the world to look the same in 100 years from now.
We will slowly take control over every single square feet on this planet. That goes not without troubles.
We need to do something; and that's heal our psychology. We can't just save the planet because all the thing that are killing it are things that we make "to feel good". Most of our economy is based on consuming things we don't need. Most of the pollutions comes for the energy sector and all the containers that get shipped across the ocean. Ocean Cruises are pretty bad also.
We need to focus on how to get the entire planet to execute on the same actions. That is our only hope. If 80% of the planet goes green, but 20% is still emitting pollutions, we are still in the same boat (just not sinking as fast). Getting individuals to do what is necessary will simply take pricing things correctly and making laws; most humans don't want any trouble and will easily be able to live a more sustainable life just through peer pressure.
FOCUS ON INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS. This will serve us in all problems, not just global warming.
To put it another way, if you have a cold, you don't solely focus on making the cough go away. Just drinking cough syrup isn't going to fix it. Global warming is the "cough" to our "cold". If we just "fix" global warming, we still have soooooo many other psychological issues as a species that it's not going to "save the planet". We can't even agree if humans should live or die. There is so much nihilism that there are lots of people who are content on doing whatever; until they die. Lo, they prolly want death and are just to scared to do it themselves.
This is a legit problem; that many humans (either through religion or personal belief) don't WANT humans to live; or don't think we deserve to live. How are you going to solve that by solving global warming? We can't even agree that, regardless of our impact on the climate, we should be as clean to our environment as we can. Half the population only cares about GDP.
Go back to first principles and let's SOLVE THIS. We all watch the Avengers, but don't come out wanting to BE THE HERO. We can solve this. We can't save all the animals; but we can solve this.
So stop bitching, let's come up with solutions. Until the last second on the game clock ticks, you are in the game. Make a friggin' play. (YES YOU!)
> If 80% of the planet goes green, but 20% is still emitting pollutions, we are still in the same boat (just not sinking as fast).
I'm not sure this is actually representative of the facts. We don't need 100% of the planet to go green to stabilize our temperature below a threshold and there are negative feedbacks on carbon emissions.
1) There was an area of marshland close to where I live. A small part of it was drained for agriculture. Immediately after this, the insect population in the area went way down. You didn't have to measure it. We were swamped with insects, then there were virtually none. Habitat seems to be a big thing but I'm not sure how it compares with pesticides.
2) I saw a documentary once about a guy in India growing roses on an industrial scale. But he didn't use pesticides or herbicides. His roses were the best and he could command a high price. It took a lot of work, but more importantly, he emphasized, it took a lot of knowledge. Just listening to him your had no trouble appreciating his intelligence. Unfortunately this may not scale up that well as there are not enough people of his calibre in agriculture. It's just not as sexy as tech or finance or law or whatever.
The current U.S. administration is hostile to the environment in general. All Republican administrations are, but this one is notably much worse. It's rolled back nearly all the regulations that were intended to prevent another Deepwater Horizon incident.
All those pesky regulations that cost corporations money! As if regulations do zero good. Well here's an example of where they do good and yes that absolutely costs corporations profits. That's the point. Quite a lot of those profits come from exploitation, and externalities. Inhibit them, and profits go down, not a surprise.
One thing that I fail to wrap my mind around: aren’t all those corporations executives, politicians, and poachers living on the same planet Earth as all of us? Don’t they ever think that they’re actually destroying our planet and there’s no other place to live?
I can imagine that they don’t believe pro-climate change people, but they could simply hire an independent group of researchers, don’t they? And I mean actually independent researchers, not those who will produce any outcome you demand from them.
Don't underestimate the ability of people to ignore evidence if it challenges their personal beliefs. I know way too many retired engineers who refuse to believe the science because a certain TV network has convinced them that it's a political hoax.
That attitude even trickles down to more local issues -https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/02/20/3m-vs-minnesota-wat... here in MN for example. Many of the people I refer to above are 3M'ers and believe that the State is extorting 3M. A couple of them are very vocally opposed to anyone installing water filters because of this.
That's the not-so-funny element. Companies like Exxon were the first to hire independent researchers back in the 70s and helped pioneer climate research, with management being briefed on the as far back as 1977, and had developed its own models by 1982 that were widely circulated within the company.[0][1] That research was allowed to continue for nearly a decade, and Exxon researchers consulted on DOE research and reports throughout the 80s. It wasn't hidden, either within the company or without, until management decided to take a somewhat different approach with its lobbying efforts. They saw the word "uncertainty" with regards to climate modeling as a lifeline, and they took it.
It's easy to generalize interested parties that promote climate change denialism as not giving a damn since they'll be long dead before the worst consequences hit. That may very well be a partial explanation, but if you look at how some of the rhetoric has shifted with talk of geoengineering, there's this idea that a future generation will be able to deploy technical fixes. And once you buy into the hope that offers, it's inevitable that you'll downplay the sheer cost and scale of such an intervention. After all, computers are cheaper now than they were in the 80s, so who knows how expensive geoengineering will be in a few decades? There's a hope that an easier, cheaper solution will present itself in the future.
So I think a larger part of the answer isn't so much that corporate executives and politicians don't believe in climate change (though there are probably plenty who have bought into their own spin), as it is that they've pinned their hopes on the terribly alluring delusion that maybe it'll be cheaper to reverse the trend tomorrow than make the sort of difficult choices needed to start mitigating it today. Or, more accurately, over three decades ago.
> Don’t they ever think that they’re actually destroying our planet and there’s no other place to live?
They might, but monetarily speaking, they can afford it. See: home protection via private firefighters [1], ability to buy citizenship in nations which will be less (only a little less) affected by rising surface temperatures [2], and of course more extreme prepper stuff [3].
Pointing with the finger on others is not going to help. We're destroying our planet together. Nearly everyone is involved, and most of the problems are hard to solve because they are 1. collective action problems whose right solution is not a Nash equilibrium, and 2. involve long term risks.
Humans are not bad at solving the first category, according to some theories social institutions evolve out of a need to solve these kind of problems, but we're very bad at the second category, as every smoker can attest you. Humanity has never displayed any ability to think and plan ahead fifty or hundred years, let alone longer periods.
A lot of people live pretty disconnected from nature. In cities and suburbs it can feel like we’ve conquered nature; so it can be hard for people to grasp how dependent we still are on biodiversity. We’re also poorly wired for prioritizing long term plans over short term rewards. Even when, rationally, we know a crisis is looming. Then there’s plain old cognitive dissonance — our inability to accept facts that conflict with our worldview. And lastly: being wealthy and powerful doesn’t always equate with being intelligent.
About 30% of people seem wired as non-cooperators even when this is disadvantageous; they only ever transact competitively. That's a good trait to have for certain social niches; but to the extent that those social roles shape the environment for everyone else it's a problem.
They will just usually say "let the others do it". Game theory says that all parties could be better off by co-operating but if you get benefit if you defect while others co-operate then everyone would end up defecting. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Internation... for an example.
We live in a winner-takes-all world, or conversely, an eat-or-be-eaten world. Giving in to the environment means your competitor is now one step ahead of you.
This holds for individuals (politicians), companies, and even countries (e.g. US versus China).
I had this thought every time I see a certain group in the US demonizing the EPA. We all use the same air, water and soil. Aren't they afraid if their kids take in the toxins that are allowed into said resources because the EPA's funding is cut or they push through laws that prevent the EPA from doing what they should be doing??
I mean, I live in Russia and I ask myself the same question about our "president". And the North Korea, that's a nightmare on a country scale. It seems, once you get up there, your humanity somehow gets abstracted away by either power or groups with interests...
reading your comment made me think about this video where a green activist ask during a session with lawmakers in Luxembourg « who among you has read the ipcc report ? »
Don't try to scapegoat, it's a collective action problem, everyone on the planet is responsible for this. Think about how painful it would be for you to totally wean yourself off fossil fuels. It's the same at the nation level.
What are they supposed to do? Run their company into the ground to be a sacrificial lamb in our capitalist society? Humanity is still a competition. Worrying about nature will get you bulldozed.
This isn't the outcome of just a small group of 'bad guys'. Extinction is a byproduct of the increased footprint of humankind as our populations and their associated demands grow. Climate change is one problem, but it isn't the full problem. For example, you need education (to reduce demand for poached goods), political and economic stability (to reduce conditions of poverty that make poaching a rewarding pursuit, or which might drive people to despoil the natural environment to survive in extreme conditions), and somehow a way to defuse the current engine that requires population growth to fuel economic growth.
Serious question: what things/science/technology should you work on that can impact this and compound positively over time (outside of just changing your own personal habits, but not to say you shouldn’t do this as well)?
Alarming articles like this raise more questions than answers. The number of species on earth apparently ranges from 2 million to 1 trillion (??). One question is whether this biodiversity is needed. Life on earth has survived significantly larger extinction events and in the grand scheme of things "preservation" is not an optimal condition for anything. It just feels good for humans to preserve the planet.
More importantly however, evolution has found a clear winner in its path towards (whatever she was trying to do): humans. We are already beginning to alter evolutionary trends and this will only keep accelerating. It's worth considering whether evolution is now obsolete and whether indeed most species serve a purpose. With brains taking over, life is on transformative path which will lead to it becoming extraterrestial and generally way more transformative than evolution has ever been.
> If everyone in the US and Europe dropped dead, that would be about a 24% decrease in global GHG emissions
That's not quite right. A lot of that pollution by China and Other is due to exports for US and European consumption. We just outsourced our pollution. So it depends on how one does the accounting.
This is only true because the US didn't lead 40 years ago when environmental impacts were well-studied but conservative politicians like Ronald Reagan began doubling down on anti-environment policies.
Then China and India cargo culted our "western" lifestyle and the rest is history.
The only inspiration I find in all of this is that many developing countries are rejecting rat race capitalism for basic sustainability. Many of them have better/cheaper internet connectivity than we do, and are adopting solar and wind projects in place of coal power plants. If they invest in automated community gardens (similar to our lettuce greenhouses), there is a chance that they will go around us within a generation.
I think that explains a lot of US interventionism in Africa and South America. They see this sort of futurism as socialism or communism and do everything possible to shut it down at every turn.
Someone else commented:
> If you have any investments shift them from fossil to green.
I'm interested in ideas about how to do this.
There are some MSCI indices along these lines like the "low carbon" ones[1]. But these still include fossil fuel companies, just with a lower weight.
There are also "ex fossil fuel" indices[2], but these only exclude companies that dig up the fossil fuels, and not necessarily those that emit. There is no weighting based on emissions in these.
Are there any broad equity indices that exclude fossil fuel companies and heavy emitters entirely, and then weight-adjust the rest based on emissions?
The planet Earth has been evolving continuously for billions of years. Mass extinctions and non-anthropogenic climate changes are evident in the Earth's crust. We're not the only species that left its footprint. We should try to preserve biodiversity and prevent anthropogenic climate change but not at the expense of humanity's development.
We are the dominant species because we deserve it.
serious question: what things should you work on that can have the greatest impact and compound positively (I.e go beyond changing just your personal habits)?
[+] [-] kilroy123|6 years ago|reply
The increases in anxiety in the general public over the last decade or so is in large part to people knowing we're on an unsustainable path. We're all collectively marching towards the edge of the cliff to jump off together. More people than ever have anxiety because we subconsciously (or consciously) know this.
We're unsustainable with how we pollute and how we treat the environment. How we overfish the oceans. Income inequality rising. Political and cultural polarization widening.
It's all so unsustainable.
[+] [-] pvaldes|6 years ago|reply
... after killing all of those, we would have still to wipe 366.000 extra species to reach one million.
[+] [-] njarboe|6 years ago|reply
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle#Distribution_and_divers...
Edit:Link to the Assessment Reports this article discusses [2].
[2]https://www.ipbes.net/assessment-reports
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spurgu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vbuwivbiu|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perfunctory|6 years ago|reply
- Stop flying to conferences. Go to a local meetup. It's fun. And cheaper. If you really need to get out of town, take a train.
- Start working part time, and part of that part time remotely. Reduce your commute. If your boss won't let you, find a job that will. In the current job market you can negotiate almost anything, and remote work must be the easiest thing to negotiate.
- Reduce your meat consumption as much as you can. Don't go all the way vegan, but make meat a special treat not a commodity.
- If you have any investments shift them from fossil to green.
- Don't upgrade your phone. Seriously.
[+] [-] devmunchies|6 years ago|reply
> We need to link it to human well-being, that’s the crucial thing. Otherwise we’re going to look like a bunch of tree-huggers
God forbid someone thinks you love nature.
[+] [-] crispinb|6 years ago|reply
I'm planning to get up in the wee hours tomorrow to check out the Eta Acquarids. We have a magnificent night sky on clear nights here, but there's always a creeping edge of sadness knowing half the world's human population is denied it, and that the cool starlight falls on a dying planet.
> God forbid someone thinks you love nature.
Yes wouldn't that be terrible. I wish though we could ditch the word 'nature' (as if there could be anything else). Similarly with 'the environment' (as if we had another home).
[+] [-] Freak_NL|6 years ago|reply
Slowly, very slowly, society as a whole, worldwide, may move towards greener choices (eat less meat, improve home insulation, fly less, waste less, recycle more, consume less), but it's not fast enough is it?
[+] [-] basetop|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] holoduke|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcdramamean|6 years ago|reply
We need to focus on how to get the entire planet to execute on the same actions. That is our only hope. If 80% of the planet goes green, but 20% is still emitting pollutions, we are still in the same boat (just not sinking as fast). Getting individuals to do what is necessary will simply take pricing things correctly and making laws; most humans don't want any trouble and will easily be able to live a more sustainable life just through peer pressure.
FOCUS ON INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS. This will serve us in all problems, not just global warming.
To put it another way, if you have a cold, you don't solely focus on making the cough go away. Just drinking cough syrup isn't going to fix it. Global warming is the "cough" to our "cold". If we just "fix" global warming, we still have soooooo many other psychological issues as a species that it's not going to "save the planet". We can't even agree if humans should live or die. There is so much nihilism that there are lots of people who are content on doing whatever; until they die. Lo, they prolly want death and are just to scared to do it themselves.
This is a legit problem; that many humans (either through religion or personal belief) don't WANT humans to live; or don't think we deserve to live. How are you going to solve that by solving global warming? We can't even agree that, regardless of our impact on the climate, we should be as clean to our environment as we can. Half the population only cares about GDP.
Go back to first principles and let's SOLVE THIS. We all watch the Avengers, but don't come out wanting to BE THE HERO. We can solve this. We can't save all the animals; but we can solve this.
So stop bitching, let's come up with solutions. Until the last second on the game clock ticks, you are in the game. Make a friggin' play. (YES YOU!)
[+] [-] MiroF|6 years ago|reply
I'm not sure this is actually representative of the facts. We don't need 100% of the planet to go green to stabilize our temperature below a threshold and there are negative feedbacks on carbon emissions.
[+] [-] discreteevent|6 years ago|reply
1) There was an area of marshland close to where I live. A small part of it was drained for agriculture. Immediately after this, the insect population in the area went way down. You didn't have to measure it. We were swamped with insects, then there were virtually none. Habitat seems to be a big thing but I'm not sure how it compares with pesticides.
2) I saw a documentary once about a guy in India growing roses on an industrial scale. But he didn't use pesticides or herbicides. His roses were the best and he could command a high price. It took a lot of work, but more importantly, he emphasized, it took a lot of knowledge. Just listening to him your had no trouble appreciating his intelligence. Unfortunately this may not scale up that well as there are not enough people of his calibre in agriculture. It's just not as sexy as tech or finance or law or whatever.
[+] [-] cmurf|6 years ago|reply
All those pesky regulations that cost corporations money! As if regulations do zero good. Well here's an example of where they do good and yes that absolutely costs corporations profits. That's the point. Quite a lot of those profits come from exploitation, and externalities. Inhibit them, and profits go down, not a surprise.
[+] [-] dkarbayev|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knz|6 years ago|reply
That attitude even trickles down to more local issues -https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/02/20/3m-vs-minnesota-wat... here in MN for example. Many of the people I refer to above are 3M'ers and believe that the State is extorting 3M. A couple of them are very vocally opposed to anyone installing water filters because of this.
[+] [-] Bluestrike2|6 years ago|reply
It's easy to generalize interested parties that promote climate change denialism as not giving a damn since they'll be long dead before the worst consequences hit. That may very well be a partial explanation, but if you look at how some of the rhetoric has shifted with talk of geoengineering, there's this idea that a future generation will be able to deploy technical fixes. And once you buy into the hope that offers, it's inevitable that you'll downplay the sheer cost and scale of such an intervention. After all, computers are cheaper now than they were in the 80s, so who knows how expensive geoengineering will be in a few decades? There's a hope that an easier, cheaper solution will present itself in the future.
So I think a larger part of the answer isn't so much that corporate executives and politicians don't believe in climate change (though there are probably plenty who have bought into their own spin), as it is that they've pinned their hopes on the terribly alluring delusion that maybe it'll be cheaper to reverse the trend tomorrow than make the sort of difficult choices needed to start mitigating it today. Or, more accurately, over three decades ago.
0. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-...
1. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-...
[+] [-] mperham|6 years ago|reply
― Upton Sinclair
[+] [-] twright|6 years ago|reply
They might, but monetarily speaking, they can afford it. See: home protection via private firefighters [1], ability to buy citizenship in nations which will be less (only a little less) affected by rising surface temperatures [2], and of course more extreme prepper stuff [3].
[1]: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/priva...
[2]: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/silicon-valley-doomsday-p...
[3]: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-...
[+] [-] 13415|6 years ago|reply
Humans are not bad at solving the first category, according to some theories social institutions evolve out of a need to solve these kind of problems, but we're very bad at the second category, as every smoker can attest you. Humanity has never displayed any ability to think and plan ahead fifty or hundred years, let alone longer periods.
[+] [-] gdubs|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anigbrowl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|6 years ago|reply
This holds for individuals (politicians), companies, and even countries (e.g. US versus China).
[+] [-] e40|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nickflood|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ddebernardy|6 years ago|reply
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doo...
[+] [-] rihegher|6 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/KSxIbJlkKD0
[+] [-] mooseburger|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pastor_elm|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheBeardKing|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] z0r|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zuluwill|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] return1|6 years ago|reply
More importantly however, evolution has found a clear winner in its path towards (whatever she was trying to do): humans. We are already beginning to alter evolutionary trends and this will only keep accelerating. It's worth considering whether evolution is now obsolete and whether indeed most species serve a purpose. With brains taking over, life is on transformative path which will lead to it becoming extraterrestial and generally way more transformative than evolution has ever been.
[+] [-] mooseburger|6 years ago|reply
If everyone in the US and Europe dropped dead, that would be about a 24% decrease in global GHG emissions. Said emissions need to be 40% to 70% lower by 2050, according to the IPCC (https://www.climatecentral.org/news/major-greenhouse-gas-red...).
Bottom line, you're not getting anywhere without a truly formidable effort by China, and likely Central/South America and Africa as well.
[+] [-] perfunctory|6 years ago|reply
That's not quite right. A lot of that pollution by China and Other is due to exports for US and European consumption. We just outsourced our pollution. So it depends on how one does the accounting.
[+] [-] TearsInTheRain|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zackmorris|6 years ago|reply
Then China and India cargo culted our "western" lifestyle and the rest is history.
The only inspiration I find in all of this is that many developing countries are rejecting rat race capitalism for basic sustainability. Many of them have better/cheaper internet connectivity than we do, and are adopting solar and wind projects in place of coal power plants. If they invest in automated community gardens (similar to our lettuce greenhouses), there is a chance that they will go around us within a generation.
I think that explains a lot of US interventionism in Africa and South America. They see this sort of futurism as socialism or communism and do everything possible to shut it down at every turn.
[+] [-] wcoenen|6 years ago|reply
I'm interested in ideas about how to do this.
There are some MSCI indices along these lines like the "low carbon" ones[1]. But these still include fossil fuel companies, just with a lower weight.
There are also "ex fossil fuel" indices[2], but these only exclude companies that dig up the fossil fuels, and not necessarily those that emit. There is no weighting based on emissions in these.
Are there any broad equity indices that exclude fossil fuel companies and heavy emitters entirely, and then weight-adjust the rest based on emissions?
[1] https://www.msci.com/low-carbon-indexes
[2] https://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_Global_F...
[+] [-] ww520|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danaos|6 years ago|reply
We are the dominant species because we deserve it.
[+] [-] zuluwill|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apoph3nia|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saleiva|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Abishek_Muthian|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] malcolmgreaves|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seahyc|6 years ago|reply