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

Protect the last of the wild

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#111

Post by sharkmerry »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #104
sharkmerry wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they did allow controlled burns, thats what his link says. So you created a strawman in the scientists. The 1964 Wilderness Act, Tall Timbers Research Conferences, and Southern Forest Fire Lab research demonstrated the positive benefits derived from natural and prescribed fire. As a result, national fire policy began to evolve to address both the economic and ecological benefits of not aggressively controlling, a…

I never said they didn't allow control burns at all either. They were stopping them too soon, doing them too little, etc. Which is why I said they stopped listening to locals for input on those policies, not that they stopped them completely. So no, I did no such thing, and in fact, it is you who created the strawman. That seems to be the theme of the day today, because I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

Your comment above mine says this

" I said they stopped listening to locals for advice about, primarily, the control burns, and the needs for forest thinning."

It doesnt say the need for MORE forest thining. Its says needs for forest thinning, which implies it wasnt happening

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#112

Post by dmach »

japhyr wrote: post #40

I live in southeast Alaska, where we have a relatively healthy population of coastal brown bears. When we go into the woods, there is always a chance a bear could be nearby. Your first encounter with a brown bear in the wild can be unnerving. It's a really different feeling to see an animal that could easily kill you in the woods, without a wall or a fence between you and that animal. It's really humbling, and makes…

I think the ecological issues we're facing are more serious and underappreciated that the overall warming problem. They are linked but ultimately we can survive longer as it gets warmer, just more alone. If you do a search for ecological the result presumes you mean environmental a lot. Pollution, plastics and habitats need very urgent attention as well has CO2/Methane.

It is also one of the big results people are freaking out about the changing climates but stay away from mentioning it much as many don't see it affecting us directly. Technology may drive us enough to replace the untouched wildness essential for nature. I've heard the only large area becoming wilder is Chernobyl and it's hard to think about what's next for Brazil and pretty much everywhere.

We have to consider what's left to be land of the highest value and compensate people (less the 0.1%) who are affected by that decision.

This may be of interest https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/21/alaska...

I hope the bears keep tourists away.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#113

Post by biglenny »

farrisbris wrote: post #95
biglenny wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you insist on a choice being "hard". What matters is the outcome. Taking billions of dollars out of foreign FF stocks has a good outcome for the environment and leads the way for even more to be taken out. The economy is unaffected. Government gets their petrorevenues to spend on reducing the country's emissions. Stopping drilling just means another producer fills the void, and the Norwegian economy…

Its not that they have to be hard choices. Its rather that we are only commiting to try the easy ones. And i do agree that what matters is the outcome. I just don't think we are changing the outcome as much as we should be doing given our beneficial position in the world. There are only so many easy "things", for lack of a better word, we can do. The rest are hard. And it seems to me that we are stopping short of com…

>But our carbon emmisions are still climbing while most of the europe that we should be comparing ourselves to has either stopped or reduced their emmisions. We are still not contributing to a carbon negative world other than not being as bad as we could have been.

What now? Your emissions have remained flat for the last ten years, you have a carbon tax, your country was one of the first to implement CCS technology [1]. You guys have by no means been sitting on your hands.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#114

Post by taneq »

ab71e5 wrote: post #43
taneq wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a life-long vegetarian here, I don't think most people are naturally suited to it. I don't eat meat because I don't want to. I know I'd hate to live my life wanting, say, cheese, or spinach, or whatever, and denying it to myself because of some imagined higher good. I feel like people should embrace their nature. Mine doesn't happen to include eating meat. Most peoples' does, and that's OK.

So then it's a nature/nurture kind of discussion. Do you think some people are genetically unable to stop eating meat? Personally, I think your tastes will adapt, i.e. it wouldn't feel like denying yourself anything after a while. But maybe it's different for some people. Also commercials and just society around you influences your cravings. I think if you would grow up somewhere where there is no dairy for example,…

I don't think they're genetically unable to stop, but I think they're genetically predisposed to prefer eating meat if it's an option. I've gone without dairy for a couple of months here and there (while traveling in Asia where it's much less of a thing than at home) and definitely still missed it by the time I got home.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#115

Post by taneq »

ab71e5 wrote: post #51
taneq wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to move around exclusively by hopping on one leg. Doesn't mean it's the best way to live your life.

But hopping around on one leg is obviously less efficient, slower and maybe even unhealthy for your joints etc. Is a vegetarian diet less efficient or healthy? It is limiting your choices in restaurants obviously, but suppose you live in some vegetarian community. Is this community limiting its potential? While if you live in a community that exclusively hops around on one leg, the answer is obviously yes, for the fi…

A vegetarian diet often has significantly less protein (important if you're trying to build or maintain muscle mass) and less of some trace nutrients (zinc, iron, vitamin B12) than a diet including meat. It's possible to make up the differences and there are health benefits if you do, but it's definitely more work.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#116

Post by gnosis89 »

village-idiot wrote: post #110
gnosis89 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you're hopping from evolution to genetic features as though they are the same thing. I never mentioned that I have good teeth or that I was vegetarian, nor is it anecdotal that vegetarians have better dental hygiene. I highly doubt our teeth will change at all because people don't die from lack of a certain tooth. Teeth don't matter when you can literally have all fake teeth and get by eating just fine. In fact,…

You keep asserting, sans proof, that individuals evolve. Unfortunately for you, the experts disagree[0-2]. Evolution is something that happens to a population , not an individual. > I highly doubt our teeth will change at all because people don't die from lack of a certain tooth. Yes, I made this point. But that was not true when humans evolved into our current form, right around when the rest of us evolved. Until re…

Okay, you're merely arguing semantics with me on evolution. You can call it adaptation or a catalyst for evolution, whatever word you want, but it's still evolution. When applying the theory of evolution to humans, you can't use such a simple definition because we have technology. Additionally, our minds are powerful enough to decide to do things that will cause physiological changes beyond those that one might say would have been caused by natural selection. And how do our minds evolve? Thought, experience, brain processes that we have yet to understand fully which are also directly linked/affected with the rest of our bodies. The evolution of our collective consciousness and knowledge base is the where the real evolution is occurring.

Honestly have no idea what you're saying about teeth anymore, your whole point was that our teeth prove we are meant to have omnivorous diets, which I was arguing against because our teeth are relics just like our nails, they do not matter anymore, so I still don't know how your point stands. They are merely links to our past evolution and what we used to eat 100's of thousands of years ago, long before we discovered cooking which some have linked to a spike in our evolution to our current status.

You literally said "Coincidentally, vegetarians have a higher rate of cavities than the population at large." Cavities are tooth decay btw...not sure why you think they are two different things.

Sorry, but they really don't, and the study you're pushing trying to claim that shit was done on isolated indigenous populations which has nothing to do with vegetarians in the rest of the world who are able to get K2 from plenty of non meat foods like cheese or eggs. More than likely, those isolated tribes are vegan more-so than vegetarian without access to milk-based products or soy beans. Also you get K2 from your gut as well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1492156

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/changing-our-dna-...

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#117

Post by grondilu »

mac01021 wrote: post #18
grondilu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that the opposite assessment requires more justification. Ever since Neolithic, mankind has been domesticating most if not all species it consumed. And we've been deforesting like crazy. We're not hunter gatherers anymore, so our progress has consisted relying less and less on wilderness and more on controlled, artificial environments. I'm not saying that we don't need wilderness for deeper reasons (sa…

Absolutely not definitive, but the biosphere 2 experiments provide a data point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

We were talking about wilderness. Biosphere 2 is about way more than that, as it was a completely sealed environment (it had to produce its own oxygen, for a start).

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#118

Post by ip26 »

briga wrote: post #71

What these reports often seem to ignore is that there is still biodiversity within our cities--sometimes a lot of it. If the default assumption is "city bad, wilderness good", we're never going to make any progress, because short of an apocalyptic event cities are here to stay. What we should be focused on is making the cities we live in more sustainable and integrated with their ecosystems. Green roofs, urban parks,…

Thinking just of recognizable animals, typical cities have, what, rats, cats, starlings, house sparrows, rock doves, gulls, and not terribly much more. We can do better, but in general cities are not biodiversity hotspots.

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#119

Post by [deleted] »

gnosis89 wrote: post #116
village-idiot wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep asserting, sans proof, that individuals evolve. Unfortunately for you, the experts disagree[0-2]. Evolution is something that happens to a population , not an individual. > I highly doubt our teeth will change at all because people don't die from lack of a certain tooth. Yes, I made this point. But that was not true when humans evolved into our current form, right around when the rest of us evolved. Until re…

Okay, you're merely arguing semantics with me on evolution. You can call it adaptation or a catalyst for evolution, whatever word you want, but it's still evolution. When applying the theory of evolution to humans, you can't use such a simple definition because we have technology. Additionally, our minds are powerful enough to decide to do things that will cause physiological changes beyond those that one might say w…

[deleted]

Re: Protect the last of the wild

#120

Post by village-idiot »

gnosis89 wrote: post #116
village-idiot wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep asserting, sans proof, that individuals evolve. Unfortunately for you, the experts disagree[0-2]. Evolution is something that happens to a population , not an individual. > I highly doubt our teeth will change at all because people don't die from lack of a certain tooth. Yes, I made this point. But that was not true when humans evolved into our current form, right around when the rest of us evolved. Until re…

Okay, you're merely arguing semantics with me on evolution. You can call it adaptation or a catalyst for evolution, whatever word you want, but it's still evolution. When applying the theory of evolution to humans, you can't use such a simple definition because we have technology. Additionally, our minds are powerful enough to decide to do things that will cause physiological changes beyond those that one might say w…

There’s no point in continuing this thread, you’re literally making up your own definition for every subject we’re talking about.
Post reply on HN