Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 250 posts

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#161

Post by grasshopperpurp »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #42
some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

> we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. This "harmony" is really just interlocking loops of unconstrained growth, followed by running out of resources, and starvation while the food supply regenerates. It only looks pretty if you ain't looking very carefully. In fact, human beings seem to be the only ones observed with a capability for restraint . We're not very good at prac…

You're very right, and I don't like the way the OP framed the argument. The problem is 1) even though we're capable, as you note, we're terrible at utilizing it, and 2) we're so much more powerful than any other species, so when we do lack restraint, we cause much more damage.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#162

Post by danharaj »

lstodd wrote: post #159
focal-point wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't leave cats like this outside. It's not okay for them to kill wildlife.

Would you yourself consider lifetime seclusion? Why, you cause harm to billions of living creatures every time you venture outside. (Although sitting in solitary jail cell only reduces that by a negligible factor). And that's only taking into account direct harm, third or fourth-order consequences of being out there are impossible to even start comprehending. If not, why you think it's okay to condemn another living…

Christ, just don't keep a cat if it bothers you so much.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#163

Post by tenken »

mft_ wrote: post #129
vidarh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, your cat will also likely be very cruel if it ever caches a mouse or a bird, so I'll raise you that for harmony :) We had a cat once who, we found out, liked to sit in the berry bushes in the garden, wait for a bird to land, and then kill them. She didn't didn't eat them - she much preferred the cat food she got. She just murdered bird after bird and left them to rot. Cats certainly are not the best examples…

Are (aren't?) cats the only animal that kills for fun, rather than food? (Apart from the scum that are some humans...)

... dolphins ...

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#164

Post by hulahoof »

fao_ wrote: post #152
pvaldes wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name of the people that had leaved the planet is not exactly a secret. > we hunted enough to eat, but not so much that the species died Yep, the myth of the good savage. Mammooth, Moas, European Wolly Rhino, Megalania giant varanus, Meiolania turtle, Sabre tooth tiger, Cave bear or Australian Diprotodon could tell us a different hystory.

> The name of the people that had leaved the planet is not exactly a secret. Yes, but all that proves is that some subset of humanity is capable of doing it. Not humanity as a whole. > Yep, the myth of the good savage. Actually a lot of the verbal culture of many tribes show that they understand how they are dependent on the animals for their food source, and you can find active efforts not to overhunt in many cultur…

> Yes, but all that proves is that some subset of humanity is capable of doing it. Not humanity as a whole.

What's the point of this argument? Yes, humanity as a whole has become very specialised. With the consensus of the community and enough will power a subset of humanity can achieve almost anything we can conceive. Is this any different than toting dolphin pods that pass on their hunting tricks? Or captive gorillas that can communicate? Potential is not limited to the lowest common denominator.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#165

Post by 738472527784 »

some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

> we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species.

Oh boy, this is a very naive and emotionally involved perception of things. A tendency to restore ecological equilibria is not the same as harmony. There is no trend for stability or perfection, that's only an illusion based on the short lifespan of humans. That's not what science and archaeology tells us.

For most species there is no resting in appreciation of creation, no moment of weakness, no mercy. Most everything wants you dead. Wants your air, your food, your space, your niche. You fall, you stumble and there is already mold growing between your toes. In the eyes of a human there might be a fiction, a notion of meaning and beauty. For everything else there is just thermodynamics.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#166

Post by threatofrain »

some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

> If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to eat them.

But isn't nature so metal?

Through all its self-judgment, I view mankind as a way out of local maxima. A complete death might happen with or without humans, but I put my chips in humanity.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#167

Post by paidleaf »

some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

> we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species.

That's not true. Every species can't live in harmony with other species. Go read about what happened to native species on pacific islands when rats, cats, snakes, etc were introduced. They wiped out entire ecosystems of islands.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0725/How-New-Zeal...

https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2016/0725/How-New-Zeal...

Go read about ants.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352483/

They won't live in harmony with each other. A single ant colony has wiped out much of the world's ant population.

Even fish like the european carp in a span of a few hundred years wiped out much of other fish in the US and now dominate pretty much every lake and river in a continent.

> If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to eat them.

Cats, birds, pigs and even horses eat other animals. As a matter of facts, cats are devastating ecosystems around the world and causing many birds and mammals to go extincts.

https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380

> I'm not a big fan of humanity. We are pretty awful.

You are the one putting humans on a pedestal. Humans are animals just like cats, horses, etc. We are no more awful than any other animals.

Actually, you could argue humans are less awful than other animals because we actually consciously decided to save some species. A cat or a wolf or a pig would never do that. They will consume/kill until there isn't an animal left.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#168

Post by SeanMacConMara »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #55
wild_preference wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition of restraint seems based on that one example. What about when my cat restrains from eating all of its treats at once? Or the restraint any animal takes through a farming process like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphid#Ant_mutualism ?

Well, your cat will also likely be very cruel if it ever caches a mouse or a bird, so I'll raise you that for harmony :). And I'm a cat owner. RE ants, I'm not a biologist so I won't speculate how exactly that relationship came to be, but it doesn't seem to me that there was any meeting of minds involved - I would guess evolutionary feedback loops again. I made a pretty generalized argument, but the point is, what we…

> Well, your cat will also likely be very cruel if it ever caches a mouse or a bird

I'm no expert but I vaguely recall hearing from non-trivial sources that this is a common but inaccurate misrepresentation as regards their "intent". They are not "toying" with their hunting target so much as obeying a powerful instinct to be careful to kill it with the minimum risk of infection from getting even a small scratch in return from a target that is "playing dead" as a defense/evade tactic.

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#169

Post by arminiusreturns »

xd wrote: post #85
some_account wrote: post #23

Humans can't perceive a lot of things, and on top of that, we have egos that makes us feel superior even though in reality, we are the only ones on the planet who can't live in harmony with other species. If you ever had a cat and really observed it and communicated with it, you know it has feelings and emotions. Birds have it also, so does pigs, horses... But we just ignore all that when it's convenient for us to ea…

I'm not a big fan of humanity. We are pretty awful. Self loathing of the human race needs to stop, there are an incredible number of hard working people making the world a better place one step at a time. Our impact on the world barely registers to past extinction level events. Humanity has just as much right to exist and be as any other species. If you don't like what we are doing, work to improve things. Are you aw…

> Self loathing of the human race needs to stop

Why, because you said so? I'm not convinced.

> here are an incredible number of hard working people making the world a better place one step at a time.

There are also an incredible number of people making the world a worse place.

> If you don't like what we are doing, work to improve things.

I've always hated this retort. It completely ignores the systematic disenfranchisment of the people, the takeover of the political system by cronies and corporations, and increasing lack of financial and political power in the middle class, declining wage growth, rampant corruption, rampant incompetence, rampant apathy and maliciousness... just to start.

> Are you aware how many countless people have and do work to improve your quality of life, protect you,

I was one of those people who thought he was "protecting" when he signed up for the military. First of all, you need protecting from... thats right... bad guys! Second of all, the bad guys we were "protecting" you from ended up not nearly as dangerous to freedom and liberty as the people in suits back CONUS who were ripping the constitution apart.

Look, I get it. It's nice to be positive and focus on the positive things, but I feel like way too many first world people are stuck in this bubble where all the shitty things in the world are abstract "someone elses problem" things you only see on tv. I agree we need citizens to participate more (Solon made it illegal for citizens to shrink from political debate to decrease apathy for example), and we need to try to focus on and improve the positive.

That said, some of us have seen the darkside of humanity, and I don't think you ever truly come back from that to start thinking all hunkey dorey about life. I've seen so much death and destruction I know better.

Stay positive and change things, I like it. The reason I went on this long rant though is I think this wishful thinking type on either end of the spectrum is counterproductive to the very issue you are bringing up.

In essence, your statement is like religion to me. "It doesn't matter if it's not true, believing it can make you feel better!"... I don't think we can fix the problems until we have a frank and honest discussion about what those problems are and potential solutions, not just burying our head in the sand and saying "everything is great!" while a family of Yemeni's just got blown up because Saudi Arabia is our friend and we want oil. (for example)

Re: A biologist who believes that trees speak a language we can learn to listen to

#170

Post by Tehnix »

XorNot wrote: post #158
Tehnix wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not. At. All. Obesity simply comes from consuming more calories than you need. You can (and people have) loose weight by eating McDonalds if you wanted—you just have to make sure the amount of calories you get from it is less than what you actually need. As the other commentator mentions, the only thing processed foods might bring, is trying to break our self-restraint by being delicious in certain ways.

This is overly simplistic. Our bodies process sugars in vastly different ways. Fructose for example was historically rare for us to have and is metabolized in basically unlimited quantity as fast as possible by the liver and transferred to fat reserves. So yes, quantity matters but you will have incredible difficulty not putting on weight from high fructose foodstuffs because your body will tell you "eat more food" t…

Sure, but the view that it's just sugar that's bad, is even more overly simplistic, and in fact harmful. Obesity is always more deeply rooted in habits, comfort, stress and the way a person deals with things, than it is with just sugar---it's a behavioral issue that needs to be tackled at a deeper level. One calorie is one calorie, regardless of were it comes from.

You'd find very little actual scientific backing for your statement, from papers that haven't been debunked[0]. That sugar itself is bad is an age old meme that needs to die. Similarly, that kids get hyperactive with sugar is also a myth[1].

Now, your other argument that you might "feel" hungrier, is something else. You have still gotten the energy you needed, it just doesn't feel as filling, perhaps.

[0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-016-1229-6

[1] http://www.mortenelsoe.com/blog/sukkeroghyperaktivitet great write up if you can read Danish or translate it, or just check the sources in the bottom

Post reply on HN