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

A Tuna's Worth

hakaimagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#31

Post by prebrov »

wombatmobile wrote: post #13
prebrov wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They still ate all the megafauna within a couple thousand years of their arrival, and, arguably, significantly contributed to deforestation of the continent. So, not that different from the Homo Sapiens anywhere else.

Regarding deforestation, prebrov, that didn't happen in the way that, for example, the Amazon was deforested in 20th century South America by clear felling old growth forests to produce coffee and soy mono-cultures. Australian aborigines used fire to cultivate the land in mosaic patterns of cleared grasslands forested conserves. The result was an altered landscape which retained natural ecosystems whilst supporting h…

I don’t argue that it happened the same way. Impact sure took longer than what we can achieve with modern technology, but the fact remains. Humans arrived into the last jungles of Pangea, and by the time of European colonisation, Australia was a Red Continent, with Eucalyptus being the dominant large plant.

There seems to be a strong indication that human activity contributed significantly to the climate change in Australia.

Not belittling the choices humans make to opt-out of the modern civilisation, but romanticising and mythologising “closeness to nature” just isn’t productive. Profound effect on the environment is a feature of all life forms, and sustainability isn’t really on any life form’s agenda.

Who’s to say that Cyanobacteria aren’t “close to nature”? Yet buggers were so successful, and polluted atmosphere with oxygen so badly, nearly all life went extinct. Even that worked quite well in the end.

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#32

Post by willcipriano »

wombatmobile wrote: post #7
missedthecue wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At an unimaginably low standard of living.

If you lack imagination and don't get out into nature much, you might not get it. But read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and you'll gain some understanding for how rich traditional aboriginal life was.

Compared to aboriginal life, Huck Finn might as well been aboard the deck of the Starship Enterprise. Steamboats, cannons, metallurgy, the beginnings of modern medicine. The mid-nineteenth century was during the industrial revolution. I'd say your life today is closer to Huck Finn than a typical aboriginal person.

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#33

Post by jld89 »

nightski wrote: post #29
phist_mcgee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute false argument. Humans are the cause of nearly every extinction for the last several hundred years. Nature wouldn't be peaceful, but it sure as shit would be more balanced. By arguing that nature is violent and chaotic (and thus we are only doing what is natural) absolves us of our responsibility to try and undo the damage we have wreaked on this planet for centuries. We are the enemy of every creature on th…

That's a bit of straw-man, I never said any of that. You have extended the conversation far beyond eating animals which is natural and can be done responsibly.

I mean you pretty much tacitly said it with irony so...

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#34

Post by natmaka »

nightski wrote: post #29
phist_mcgee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute false argument. Humans are the cause of nearly every extinction for the last several hundred years. Nature wouldn't be peaceful, but it sure as shit would be more balanced. By arguing that nature is violent and chaotic (and thus we are only doing what is natural) absolves us of our responsibility to try and undo the damage we have wreaked on this planet for centuries. We are the enemy of every creature on th…

That's a bit of straw-man, I never said any of that. You have extended the conversation far beyond eating animals which is natural and can be done responsibly.

Nature is wild, unpredictable and senselessly gruesome. What distinguishes human beings from animals is the ability to speak on behalf of evil. Crime is a symbol of our freedom -- Jacques Vergès

Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous -- indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose. -- Richard Dawkins

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#35

Post by slothtrop »

natmaka wrote: post #34
nightski wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit of straw-man, I never said any of that. You have extended the conversation far beyond eating animals which is natural and can be done responsibly.

Nature is wild, unpredictable and senselessly gruesome. What distinguishes human beings from animals is the ability to speak on behalf of evil. Crime is a symbol of our freedom -- Jacques Vergès Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous -- indifferent t…

To put it another way, consuming animals is neither good or evil in and of itself.

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#36

Post by slothtrop »

quiescant_dodo wrote: post #21
jgwil2 wrote: post #2

Such beautiful animals. It's a shame we haven't found a way to fish them responsibly.

Apparently not beautiful enough to avoid being killed at all, though. It's a shame we haven't stopped eating animals.

It's an issue because our collective footprints grow, and we all have an environmental footprint regardless of what we consume. You could extend this to: it's a shame we haven't stopped decimating forests, it's a shame we will continue to encroach on land so long as our population grows, it's a shame that as a result of this growth more animals will die through conventional agriculture i.e. plants, etc.

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#37

Post by nix23 »

natmaka wrote: post #34
nightski wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit of straw-man, I never said any of that. You have extended the conversation far beyond eating animals which is natural and can be done responsibly.

Nature is wild, unpredictable and senselessly gruesome. What distinguishes human beings from animals is the ability to speak on behalf of evil. Crime is a symbol of our freedom -- Jacques Vergès Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous -- indifferent t…

>What distinguishes human beings from animals is the ability to speak on behalf of evil.

When was the last time you spoke with a animal? And why do you think Humans are not animals too?

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#38

Post by nix23 »

ebg13 wrote: post #3
jgwil2 wrote: post #2

Such beautiful animals. It's a shame we haven't found a way to fish them responsibly.

I wonder. Have humans managed as a collective to do anything responsibly in their entire history?

Developing vaccines and the declaration of human rights (after 2 World-wars)...but yeah there is really not much more.

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#39

Post by anitil »

wombatmobile wrote: post #14
anitil wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they did wipe out much of the mega fauna, so not necessarily sustainable in a modern sense.

This May 2020 article presents a different perspective https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/may/19/humans-austr...

Huh I guess the jury is still out then

Re: A Tuna's Worth

#40

Post by phist_mcgee »

nightski wrote: post #29
phist_mcgee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolute false argument. Humans are the cause of nearly every extinction for the last several hundred years. Nature wouldn't be peaceful, but it sure as shit would be more balanced. By arguing that nature is violent and chaotic (and thus we are only doing what is natural) absolves us of our responsibility to try and undo the damage we have wreaked on this planet for centuries. We are the enemy of every creature on th…

That's a bit of straw-man, I never said any of that. You have extended the conversation far beyond eating animals which is natural and can be done responsibly.

It is extending your argument, but I don't recant what I said. That kind of casually indifferent attitude towards 'oh well why bother because nature is chaotic' has caused so much destruction of the natural world. The attitude of resigning yourself to 'nature taking its course' long after we set it on the path it is on attempts to absolve us of our responsibilities to fix the damage we as a species do daily.
Post reply on HN