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

U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 243 posts

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#81

Post by brundolf »

efitz wrote: post #74

I am probably just a horrible person, but I just don’t care about the extinction of such specific species. Often a member of one species is practically impossible to tell from a member of a different species save for where the individual was found. I care a lot more if “crows” are endangered than if “efitz’ southeastern marble crested crow” is endangered. [ed: spelling] Also, I suspect that such narrowly defined spec…

What's important is biodiversity. Diverse biological life is more resilient, and it takes a really long time in human years for that diversity to come about in the first place. So if we're destroying it faster than it develops naturally, ecosystem health as a whole declines.

I think that's a valid point though about "how often does this naturally happen?" Surely a certain amount of extinction is natural, and we have little frame of reference for what the magnitude of that is (at least we as laypeople; maybe even scientists, I don't know)

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#82

Post by burnished »

efitz wrote: post #74

I am probably just a horrible person, but I just don’t care about the extinction of such specific species. Often a member of one species is practically impossible to tell from a member of a different species save for where the individual was found. I care a lot more if “crows” are endangered than if “efitz’ southeastern marble crested crow” is endangered. [ed: spelling] Also, I suspect that such narrowly defined spec…

These living creatures can't be brought back. Do you have the wisdom to tell which creatures are pillars of their biome? Further, do you alarm when the match is lit and the flame is spreading or do you wait until your home is already aflame?

I don't think you are a bad person. I suspect you and I grew up in a time where species dieing out is the norm as opposed to the exception, so it simply doesn't stick out for you. Its just how the world works to you. But it is recent, and I'd argue we're making a poor trade as a species, trading bio-diversity for.. frequently, strip malls or strip mining.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#83

Post by pvaldes »

inter_netuser wrote: post #10
_gmnw wrote: post #4

This is super depressing, it's crazy to see how much the flora/fauna have changed locally in my lifetime. It makes me wonder how much worse it actually is. Is looks like most of these were initially listed in the 80s, not too long after Endangered Species Act passed. Is there some sort of time limit before they officially declare something extinct?

How come they don’t investigate WHAT is actually causing this exactly? Yes climate is changing but did it change that much since 80s? What if it’s some pesticide? or some food packaging or something

How many times have you heard the past government talking about the problem with Californian porpoise?

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#84

Post by openasocket »

inter_netuser wrote: post #10
_gmnw wrote: post #4

This is super depressing, it's crazy to see how much the flora/fauna have changed locally in my lifetime. It makes me wonder how much worse it actually is. Is looks like most of these were initially listed in the 80s, not too long after Endangered Species Act passed. Is there some sort of time limit before they officially declare something extinct?

How come they don’t investigate WHAT is actually causing this exactly? Yes climate is changing but did it change that much since 80s? What if it’s some pesticide? or some food packaging or something

In the case of the ivory-billed woodpecker it was probably extinct in the 80s too. There hasn't been a universally accepted sighting of one since 1944, the few sightings made since then aren't really conclusive.

For most of these creatures they only existed in one particularly small region or area. The San Marcos gambusia, for instance, historically only lived in a single 1km stretch of the San Marcos River. Species with that tiny of an area can be driven extinct by a single bad weather event or epidemic. Or because some real estate developer decides they want to build a couple apartments. It doesn't even necessarily have to be something big. It's unfortunate, but sadly something like the San Marcos gambusia would probably have gone extinct within a few centuries, human activity or not, unless it was able to adapt to expand its range.

While climate change is definitely something to be concerned about, it is not, currently, the main driver of extinction events like this. The far bigger cause is more direct human activity, like poaching and land development.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#85

Post by beerandt »

_gmnw wrote: post #4

This is super depressing, it's crazy to see how much the flora/fauna have changed locally in my lifetime. It makes me wonder how much worse it actually is. Is looks like most of these were initially listed in the 80s, not too long after Endangered Species Act passed. Is there some sort of time limit before they officially declare something extinct?

The Ivory Billed Woodpecker hasn't had a confirmed sighting since 1944.

Lots of these species have been long gone. But the landowner of that 1944 sighting probably couldn't turn over a rock on his property without fines and lawsuits coming at him, at least until now.

ETA: If I'm remembering the stories right, either the last or one of the very last IBW sightings was doubted by officials, because the guy was a farmer or something and "not a scientist or expert".

Not getting them to pay him any attention, he went home, shot the breeding pair, and returned to the officials office with proof.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#86

Post by WalterBright »

mcguire wrote: post #64
dmkolobov wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up socialism. My point is that corporate lobbying and donations should be restricted, not that free market businesses shouldn’t exist. There is a broad, non-linear spectrum between socialism and unrestricted corporate influence on government.

Because Walter doesn't see any difference between Stalin's Soviet Union and election regulations.

You're never going to get money out of politics. Even in the Soviet Union. Do you really think the Soviet Union did not have endemic corruption in government?

Here in Seattle, the Council created "democracy vouchers" paid by the taxpayer to give to the candidate of their choice. What it really is is the incumbents using taxpayer money to fund their campaigns. If you're not an incumbent, good luck getting any of those vouchers.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#87

Post by shkkmo »

WalterBright wrote: post #65
dmkolobov wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up socialism. My point is that corporate lobbying and donations should be restricted, not that free market businesses shouldn’t exist. There is a broad, non-linear spectrum between socialism and unrestricted corporate influence on government.

> unrestricted corporate influence on government Your notion that absent corporate lobbying, government control would work out in the best interests of everybody is utterly without foundation. Your complaint about the profit motive being the root of evil also implies that without profit, things would be better. Without profit has been repeatedly tried. It never produces better results. My father grew up a socialist.…

Please try responding to what people are actually saying rather than inventing endless strawman arguments.

There are important functional distinctions between a government run enterprise, a government regulated enterprise and a completely unregulated enterprise.

There are different types of inefficiencies in heirarchical systems and market systems. Markets tend to duplicate effort often in unnecessary zero-sum games. Heirarchical systems have trouble routing around incompetence and corruption.

If you pay attention you'll notice that the systems that work best are hybrids that layer market and heirarchical systems.

While the army seems like a purely heirarchical system, it is really a hybrid system since interfaces heavily with the market systems which we call the military-industrial complex.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#88

Post by gotostatement »

efitz wrote: post #74

I am probably just a horrible person, but I just don’t care about the extinction of such specific species. Often a member of one species is practically impossible to tell from a member of a different species save for where the individual was found. I care a lot more if “crows” are endangered than if “efitz’ southeastern marble crested crow” is endangered. [ed: spelling] Also, I suspect that such narrowly defined spec…

> made the world better (in someone’s point of view) for Homo sapiens

The capitalist ideological trick is: "are you happy houses were built? Do you enjoy the convenience of modern living? Then don't get mad at us for the tradeoff."

Don't forget that there have always been better ways to accomplish these goals - more equitable, safer for the environment - but they were not done because they did not achieve maximum profit for the individual who, through various historical factors not related to their merit or wisdom, could control the capital necessary for the project.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#89

Post by titzer »

WalterBright wrote: post #25
_gmnw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that the answer is always more technology will save us. Whether it's carbon removal advances or cloning, we just look towards future advancements instead of cleaning up our act. I understand that expecting some sort of big shift in how we live is not feasible, it's just a shame.

> I love that the answer is always more technology will save us. The solution to extincting the whales for whale oil was petroleum. The solution to denuding the landscape of trees was coal. The solution to coal is natural gas, solar, nuclear power. The only alternative to technology is to shrink the human population by about 95%.

You do realize that the switch from whale oil to petroleum caused a massive, orders of magnitude increase in human footprint and ecological destruction? Had we not discovered petroleum, or had it not been there, human civilization would have plateaued or even declined, right after the extinction of these beautiful animals, because we would have absolutely hunted them to extinction unless they were protected. We would have been forced to live in balance with available resources.

The arc of whales would have followed the arc of so many other natural "resources" that are produced or even consist of living beings. There are several native hardwoods that are either effectively extinct or impossible to obtain because they were mined out.

No, we stumbled on a vast reservoir of energy buried under the ground and we've been draining that reservoir as fast as possible. We'll transition off petroleum about the time it becomes economically infeasible to extract and burn it, and not a second sooner.

By all means, bring on solar, nuclear, wind, whatever. They are just more reservoirs to tap to run this machine. Just so we can dig up, slice up, chop up, burn down, and chew up another order of magnitude of the biosphere. Because money and grandkids and ice cream.

We are too many and too greedy, and this planet has finite resources. "Technology". Always magical technology. Well until technology can grow a watermelon in a lightbulb, we are gonna keep munching away at this planet until the biosphere collapses around our ears.

Re: U.S. declares more than 20 species extinct after exhaustive searches

#90

Post by throwaway09223 »

efitz wrote: post #74

I am probably just a horrible person, but I just don’t care about the extinction of such specific species. Often a member of one species is practically impossible to tell from a member of a different species save for where the individual was found. I care a lot more if “crows” are endangered than if “efitz’ southeastern marble crested crow” is endangered. [ed: spelling] Also, I suspect that such narrowly defined spec…

Yes, I agree. Counting species is a terrible metric. We discover something like 15,000 new species every year. We really have no idea how many species are vanishing each year, because we're only examining a tiny percentage.

Another way to frame this is to ask: How many new species are created each year? Well, we don't really know-- but we do know that a new species can form in just two generations [1]. There may be thousands of species being created and destroyed every year for all we know. Not a useful metric.

A more useful metric is how common a species was before extinction. Using an example from the article, the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker was very common before its extinction. Native Americans used its skulls as decoration and currency. Its eradication is a pretty big deal - BUT - I see some other HN comments lamenting how much things have changed "in my lifetime" and I think people may be unaware that these extinctions basically occurred approximately 200 years ago. There have not been sizable populations of this species for a very long time [2].

Again, the presentation of data and metrics appears to be painting a misleading picture.

[1] https://www.princeton.edu/news/2017/11/27/study-darwins-finc...

[2] https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Ivory-billed_Woodpecker/...

Post reply on HN