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

Insect collapse

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 266 posts

Re: Insect collapse

#231

Post by quantum_magpie »

mrob wrote: post #96
Tushon wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you say the same thing about wolves, re the wolves returning to Yellowstone? https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduc...

I oppose the reintroduction of any large predator. The ecosystem benefits can be met by human hunters instead, and if they are skilled they can kill more humanely than wild predators. That said, wolves are much less dangerous than tigers, so I'm not too concerned by that specific case. To all the downvoters, what is the maximum number of humans eaten by tigers per year you'd be willing to accept in exchange for allow…

>To all the downvoters, what is the maximum number of humans eaten by tigers per year you'd be willing to accept in exchange for allowing them to roam free?

All of them.

Re: Insect collapse

#232

Post by mrob »

quantum_magpie wrote: post #230
mrob wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "extinct in the wild", not completely extinct. Tigers are popular zoo animals (partly because they're so dangerous), and they will breed in captivity. If things are so bad that even captive tigers go extinct then we have bigger problems to worry about.

Would you agree to spend your entire life in a prison for no reason? Zoos are incredibly horrible place for animals to live in, and any animal found only in zoo is as good as extinct, since they are no longer able to sustain themselves outside, should they escape the prison.

If I was severely brain damaged to the point where I had tiger-like intelligence and self-awareness, I'd be happy to spend the rest of my life in a well managed but limited environment. A well managed zoo is not a horrible place. The animals have a reliable food supply, and nothing tries to kill them. They have a large enclosure, and cover to hide from humans if they want to. They have medical care if they get sick. There are no tiger philosophers, so none of them care about freedom in the abstract. The romantic idea of "the wild" being intrinsically good is a human idea. Nature is a horrible place for most animals.

Certainly there are bad zoos, and I support legislation to enforce high standards of animal welfare, but the only animal I am aware of that is absolutely unsuited to captivity is the killer whale (which IMO might be smart enough to have some philosophical understanding of abstract freedom).

Re: Insect collapse

#233

Post by xupybd »

quantum_magpie wrote: post #231
mrob wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I oppose the reintroduction of any large predator. The ecosystem benefits can be met by human hunters instead, and if they are skilled they can kill more humanely than wild predators. That said, wolves are much less dangerous than tigers, so I'm not too concerned by that specific case. To all the downvoters, what is the maximum number of humans eaten by tigers per year you'd be willing to accept in exchange for allow…

>To all the downvoters, what is the maximum number of humans eaten by tigers per year you'd be willing to accept in exchange for allowing them to roam free? All of them.

Really you’d wipe out the entire human race to see tigers remain in the wild? That’s an odd hypothetical but do you really stand by it or am I missing something.

Re: Insect collapse

#234

Post by quantum_magpie »

wmeredith wrote: post #46
pfisch wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In the most practical terms, wouldn’t a first-world genocide be good* for the environment? I mean, the problem is us, right? *I am not personally endorsing genocide.

Yes, world-wide genocide would be amazing for the environment.

Re: Insect collapse

#235

Post by quantum_magpie »

crispinb wrote: post #211
gerbilly wrote: post #67

Wendell Berry once wrote that we are at war with nature, and I think the metaphor is quite appropriate. This war, like most wars, has turned out to be a trickier business than we expected. We must now face two shocking surprises. The first surprise is that if we say and believe that we are at war with nature, then we are in the fullest sense at war: that is, we are both opposing and being opposed, and the costs to bo…

Though I sometimes enjoy Berry, he's wrong. We can't be 'at war' with nature. We are nature. Human destruction of ecosystems is a natural process - it's not fundamentally different from introduced flora & fauna overrunning island ecologies. It's just happening on a planetary scale. The only 'unnatural' aspect of the picture is the common notion that humans (primates designed for small-scale tribal interactions) could…

>Though I sometimes enjoy Berry, he's wrong. We can't be 'at war' with nature. We are nature. Human destruction of ecosystems is a natural process - it's not fundamentally different from introduced flora & fauna overrunning island ecologies. It's just happening on a planetary scale.

Yes, we are nature. However, in this case, we assume a role of a parasite. A cancerous growth that keeps consuming it's host until they both die. That is the uniqueness of humanity, the ability to completely destroy the habitat of the species on global scale.

Re: Insect collapse

#236

Post by petilon »

vzq wrote: post #83
petilon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it significantly impacts the daily lives of uneducated Americans . Educated people around the world already want to do something. Uneducated people outside America already want to do something (because their governments are on board.) It is uneducated Americans -- and their president -- that is going to do us all in. This means the survival of the planet depends on our ability to communicate with and convince un…

You live in a fantasy world if you think uneducated people outside America give two fucks about global warming. Most uneducated people outside America live worse lives than uneducated people in America, so they have much more important and immediate things to care about than global warming.

Outside America the governments are on board. The only country not in Paris Accord is the USA (which also happens to be, historically, the biggest contributor to global warming).

Re: Insect collapse

#237

Post by rubarax »

Someday, we will realize that it's too late. There only will be regrets. Meanwhile, we just have to ignore it and complain about stupid stuff. That's humankind.

Re: Insect collapse

#238

Post by petilon »

WhompingWindows wrote: post #214
petilon wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it significantly impacts the daily lives of uneducated Americans . Educated people around the world already want to do something. Uneducated people outside America already want to do something (because their governments are on board.) It is uneducated Americans -- and their president -- that is going to do us all in. This means the survival of the planet depends on our ability to communicate with and convince un…

It's sort of delusional to say that un-educated people and Trump are the problem. Educated people have vastly huger carbon footprints than non-educated people, thinking globally. Is it the poor people in Africa and Southern/Southeastern Asia that are to blame, or is it the rich people who literally use 10X or 100X more carbon emission in their daily lives? What about the historical emissions of our ancestors - I know…

>Educated people have vastly huger carbon footprints than non-educated people, thinking globally.

But the resistance to doing something about it is not coming from educated people, at least in the US.

Regarding India and China, their governments are on board and they are making progress: https://qz.com/india/1475736/india-is-now-a-world-leader-in-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2019/01/11/china-...

Re: Insect collapse

#239

Post by ForHackernews »

toasterlovin wrote: post #229
ForHackernews wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My "side" "wins" in that my [non-existent] children and grandchildren will not suffer and starve on a famine-stricken planet burning itself to death.

I don’t get your position. You’re evidently not concerned with the greater good, only with what your own descendants will experience. But then you’re completely willing to ensure that you will leave no descendants.

I think you're poorly informed, or perhaps in denial about how far down the road we already are: [0] [1] [2]

It's essentially too late for your or my hypothetical descendants to have any effect on "the greater good". The IPCC says either we cut _worldwide_ CO2 emissions by 50% in the next 11 years, or it's game over for +1.5C scenarios: all coral reefs die, along with most of the fish, crop yields down 40% in some places, mass migration and resource wars are likely.

So basically I think it's too late for any "greater good" to come from my having kids, and I believe it's immoral to bring a life into a doomed world just to suffer.

[0] - https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/rcp-85-t...

[1] - https://hbr.org/2018/12/the-story-of-sustainability-in-2018-...

[2] - https://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8433

Re: Insect collapse

#240

Post by syncmaster913n »

nf05papsjfVbc wrote: post #101
skh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me the only thing we can really do is not have children. There are too many people on the planet.

While I'm very happy having chosen the path you suggest, I never suggest it to anyone because I think it is not realistic. What do you think the odds are, that the average person can win against one of the strongest primal drives with which every living being is born. Also, people (on average) do need to procreate if society has to continue its existence.

I would agree that having sex is one of the strongest primal drives. However, a drive to have sex =/= a drive to have children. Can you provide a source that shows having children is a natural, inborn drive of humans?
Post reply on HN