91–100 of 212 posts
Hopefully they have a DNA sample somewhere. What a shame.
One DNA sample isn’t enough. You need dozens or more to repopulate a species. If you just had one or two, you would have to rely on inbreeding to repopulate which would create too many bad genetic problems from bad genes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole article is talking about China attempts to preserve endangered fish species. It mostly talking about how in the 80 and 90s they didn't do those preservation research when building dams. The article also talks that its not only happening in China these old paddlefish species are endangered all over the globe.
> The article also talks that its not only happening in China these old paddlefish species are endangered all over the globe. What remarkable a looking fish, it looks more like a shark with a very elongated nose. Well, pat-on the-back progress aside of their 'efforts', I feel that this is in-line with not just the CCP's outview on the World, but Humanity in general. Biodiversity be damned (no pun intended) if it stan…
Legend has it that one of the early great kings of china was 大禹 (Yu the Great). But what made him great? Was he a great conqueror like Alexander? Was he a descendant of the gods? No. Yu was "great" because he built the first major floods control projects for the Yangtze river. Pause and think about this for bit. How horrible must the floods have been for a king to have literally entered legendary status for managing them?
The Yangtze river has been the lifeblood of northern China for thousands of years. But it has also literally killed 100's of millions of people. Historically, the river floods quite often, and once in a while floods on a massive, epic, scale. The sort of flood that covers thousands of square miles under many meters of water. The sort of flood that wipes out settlements across vast swaths of land and kill millions of people. Then millions die of disease and starvation. The mouth of the Yangtze has moved hundreds of miles during recorded history. And this doesn't happen little by little... it happens catastrophically with huge floods that have kill 10s of millions. Think of the Mississippi mouth moving from where it is today to someplace in south texas or georgia. The Yangtze river is that kind of epic (but not in the good way).
The Three Gorges Dam was built with the intention of finally, once and for all, controlling the Yangtze. Now, in a few centuries, maybe history will show that it was a bad idea. Or maybe history will show it was one of the most important works of civil construction in human history. Hard to say right now.
But what is clear is that it wasn't built with "short term gain" in mind. That dam is the definition of long-term civil engineering (for good or ill).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps because that title completely omits any form of attribution, which as the article suggests, is largely because of the Gezhouba Dam which completely cut paddlefish off from their only spawning grounds. Why would you want to omit that part? That said, this title is a poor attempt at communication.
There's nothing wrong with: The Chinese paddlefish, one of world's largest fish, has gone extinct *because of Yangtze dam* The problem is this part: Paddlefish, largest, from spawn, now extinct
Example: I touched off a bit of a “seems bait-y” pas de deux/do-si-do with the bot/mods re a BBC headline a while back. It’s towards the bottom (where it surely belongs) of this thread - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26552375
What was wrong with the better original title "The Chinese paddlefish, one of world's largest fish, has gone extinct"
Perhaps because that title completely omits any form of attribution, which as the article suggests, is largely because of the Gezhouba Dam which completely cut paddlefish off from their only spawning grounds. Why would you want to omit that part? That said, this title is a poor attempt at communication.
What was wrong with the better original title "The Chinese paddlefish, one of world's largest fish, has gone extinct"
Nothing; that's what the title should be. The guidelines ask you to use the original title, and not try to summarize the article yourself in the submission title.
For titles, finding (or manufacturing) one that's clearer based on actual article text is a common alternative. I've suggested "Chinese paddlefish has gone extinct due to overfishing and dams" to the moderators. (Much of that phrase occurs within the article.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am very aware of who runs China. Which is why I asked the question - are there any organizations within China that have any real power. My suspicion is that the CCP has no real effort or interest and the lack of people able to answer with a: Yes the CCP is seriously trying to protect the environment/ecosystem/species through the following things likely speaks to the lack of interest/initiative.
There are no organizations in China that oppose the government openly. At least not for long. The Chinese government has roving vans that execute dissidents and harvest their organs right outside their house. The CCP cares about the environment insofar as it benefits China. They probably do not care about a fish going extinct the way we do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One DNA sample isn’t enough. You need dozens or more to repopulate a species. If you just had one or two, you would have to rely on inbreeding to repopulate which would create too many bad genetic problems from bad genes.
Even hundreds or thousand of samples of a species would most likely still be an enormous genetic bottleneck. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
Whether this means the bottleneck hypothesis is overstated, or that we're looking at a tremendous number of bottlenecks, isn't clear.
The Gezhouba Dam generates 2.7 GW of carbon free power. In the light of the critical nature of climate change, we need to build more dams like it if we can. Even if a few species on the go go extinct, compared to the massive devastation that will happen from climate change, that is still preferable.
Climate change is an emergency, and we would be better off with more massive hydro-electric dams even at the cost of extinctions of species that might be native to the river on which it is built.