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

Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 199 posts

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#171

Post by rleigh »

gentleman11 wrote: post #163
lamontcg wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Every biologist knows that small groups in isolation evolve fastest."

Can any biologist reading this confirm or deny this statement?

Broadly true. It's standard stuff. Think about Charles Darwin and his writing about the unusual diversity of the species on the Galapagos islands, which are small and isolated. There are numerous other examples, e.g. pygmy species on Mediterranean islands (now extinct).

When population numbers within a species are large, interbreeding will tend to dilute genetic mutations within the total population. When populations are small, e.g. due to physical isolation or temporal isolation, mutations are more likely to spread and become established. This is increased further when selective pressure is applied.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#172

Post by anigbrowl »

thethethethe wrote: post #89
anigbrowl wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am absolutely interested in the opinions of biologists and ecologists on this topic because they are in the business of studying complex systems, competing populations etc.

I'd be interested too if they wrote a paper about it instead of repeating mainstream talking points in a Vox article

If you had read the article you'd have noticed it's citing a paper publisher in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#173

Post by anigbrowl »

incrudible wrote: post #112
anigbrowl wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you wanna go around arguing the Earth is flat, you need to have something more persuasive than 'do the research.' Not that you personally believe in a flat earth, but it's a good example of why we shouldn't treat epistemological uncertainty as the starting point; there is so much evidence for Earth being round and so little offered in favor of it being flat that its roundness should be treated as a fact unless ext…

Do you believe this is an appropriate analogy, given our very limited understanding of the COVID situation? If so, I would implore you to ponder the shape of the surface that we inhabit without the hindsight of 1000 years of R&D.

I'm responding to a general point of the grandparent post; we are not talking about the specifics of one area of scientific inquiry.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#174

Post by aeon_19 »

docdeek wrote: post #67

There's a quote in a Michael Crichton novel (The Lost World) that seems relevant here. As part of a rant connecting the idea of the internet and evolution, a character opines: "This idea that the whole world is wired together is mass death. Every biologist knows that small groups in isolation evolve fastest. You put a thousand birds on an ocean island and they'll evolve very fast. You put ten thousand on a big contin…

It is a nice new thinking direction. But this is posted on the wrong place. This is HN where tons of people who make their living off the connected web congregate. Hence you won't get very objective opinions here.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#175

Post by koe3 »

gentleman11 wrote: post #162
Ko76 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a big Crichton fan and wish he was around to skewer Fuckerberg & Co. Truth is we haven't got to 5 billion online. Just getting 3 billion online has run into massive issues that has split the net in many ways no one imagined. It doesn't look like we will ever get to 5 billion. So there is some baked in natural resistance. Andrew Odlyzko is looking like he was onto something when he said Metcalfe and Reeds Law of…

Recommend a book by him besides Jurassic park (which I read already)?

Airframe (explains quite well how the corporate world deals with crisis or failures)

Micro (is a Honey I shrunk the kids story but with a much more jurassic park science vibe. Have no idea why its hasn't been made into a movie)

Timeline (has been made into a movie and is a cool time travel story)

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#177

Post by Fricken »

thethethethe wrote: post #28

This might be an unpopular opinion but I am getting very tired of academics thinking they can comment cross discipline and journalists somehow think it is worthy of writing an article about. This scientist isn't bringing any interesting, new ideas to the table, they are just repeating the same talking points pushed by mainstream "liberal" politicians. > My sense is that social media in particular — as well as a broad…

We don't need to bring anything new to the table, because nobody read their Marshall McLuhan, who made a career warning us about the effects of electronic media through the 60s and 70s.

He's still the only guy worth anything in the field of media theory:

https://youtu.be/8EwkTrmAY8c

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#178

Post by [deleted] »

ppf wrote: post #164
krapp wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media was never intended to be a replacement for meaningful social interaction or bonding, any more than telephones or letter writing, or the generation of forums and personal websites it more or less replaced.

>"Founded in 2004, Facebook's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them." Facebook's mission statement.

[deleted]

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#179

Post by mikewarot »

epgui wrote: post #169
mikewarot wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what would cause people to ignore their doctor and choose to believe whatever insane thing is on social media about, say, vaccines. Our elite seem to have decided that their power and profit are more important that helping civilization last another generation. Blaming the working class for not trusting the "elite" them goes against the old adage: Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on me. Those same eli…

I roll my eyes at every utterance of this type of "elite" mantra. It's such a non-specific and over-generalized word, and it's become so loaded with pejoration, that for me it's become a sign of intellectual laziness. The "elites" are not out to get ya, bud. Start by defining with greater precision who you're talking about, and see whether this idea still feels good.

You're right... I was just using the same term as the parent comment.

It would be more precise to talk about it in terms of extracting wealth from society without comparable investment of work. Those that game the system, such as the duopoly that infests US Government.

Re: Some biologists and ecologists think social media is a risk to humanity

#180

Post by meristohm »

lambdaphagy wrote: post #150
horsawlarway wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hah, it doesn't sell , because we're at a local maxima with electric AC right now. It's so easy to literally build a square box and stick a cooler/heater in it that everyone (including me) chooses to do it. Does that mean it's the right way for us to be handling heating/cooling for our homes? Sure seemed like it 50 years ago. Sure seems less like it today with climate change, but we've already picked, and now general…

Cooling costs 1/3 the energy of heating per degree day, but comes in for more hate because it seems decadent.

What is the cost of freon on earth’s ability to radiate heat? Even if the cooling cost is less power degree than heating, there’s still a cost, scaled by number and size of units. Do enough of us have the discipline to only use the decadent, luxurious things for the outlying cases?
Post reply on HN