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

131–140 of 243 posts

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

#131

Post by exporectomy »

burnished wrote: post #82
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…

They're mostly on islands so it's very unlikely they matter at all outside of their island. If Hawaii had never been discovered, we wouldn't have to worry about losing them.

I live in a country filled with endangered "native" species but after I grew up, I learned that many of them are basically the same as common species in nearby countries, so similar that even the experts keep disagreeing on whether they're the same species or not.

If their numbers are already extremely low for a long time and everything else is doing fine, it's unlikely they're "pillars of their biome".

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

#132

Post by fleddr »

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…

You're indeed a horrible person, but at least an honest one. Seeing planetary scale habitat destruction and the wiping out of the complex web of life that took hundreds of millions of years to evolve, all in a single century, really is quite a win indeed.

Besides individual extinctions, most of the 2 millions or so other species are in deep decline. The IUCN's most positive status for a species is "least concern", really quite telling.

You'd have somewhat of point if a reasonable quality of life would only be possible at the direct expense of other species and habitats, which is not the case.

We sacrifice the world's jungles and its massively complex and old wildlife systems for palm oil. Which is absolutely not an essential requirement for human life at all.

Most other forests are sacrificed to plant crops. Not for us, to feed cattle. So that we can eat beef, the least efficient food. There are alternative meats, less eating of meat, or none at all.

We scrape the ocean floors, use electricity or even dynamite to fish in such a way that collateral damage is off the charts.

We spread our filth (plastics) across the world, it's now found at the poles and even at the bottom of the deepest oceans.

We do trophy hunting on already rare animals for superstition or a quick profit.

None of the above things are required for us to have a reasonable or good quality of life. They are short-sighted, careless and aggressive profit optimizations with disastrous and irreversible consequences. And even if you still don't care, those profits won't end up in the workers pocket or in yours.

No, wildlife habitats do not have to be stripped bare or otherwise we'd go hungry. It's bullshit.

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

#133

Post by bumby »

WalterBright wrote: post #40
dmkolobov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like that suggest no such thing. There is plenty of middle ground, including restrictions on corporate election donations, and generally limiting corporate lobbyists access to our legislators.

Again, you're saying government control won't have these problems. Socialist governments produced tremendous environmental problems because even though the government consisted solely of altruistic, self-sacrificing, dedicated, incorruptible administrators, the people still needed food, clothing, and washing machines. And the government would try to provide them, rather than face mass starvation.

I don't understand why this is portrayed as some sort of false dichotomy.

There can be government regulation without reverting to socialism. There can also be systems of checks and balances to both the ills of unfettered free-market economics and government power structures.

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

#134

Post by fleddr »

ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #104
ogaitnas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the type of proud indifference that is going to lead us down the path of no return in no time. The world is not made better by shrinking biodiversity especially in the long term. But screw posterity right? I hope you don't have kids.

Personal attacks do not belong on hacker news.

How absolutely pathetic is it that the above 3 comments, all showing care and empathy for non-human life, are massively downvoted? The state of this community.

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

#135

Post by fleddr »

shakezula wrote: post #17

Someday we’re going to hit the cascade point, where we’ve simultaneously and severely damaged or disrupted so many ecosystems that they won’t be able to recover and it all just collapses.

Wait until urban people find out what role insects play in food production. Insects in turn relying on healthy habitats.

They'll find out when shelves are empty or prices go x 10.

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

#136

Post by fleddr »

shakezula wrote: post #120
jrwoodruff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great thing is, we probably won't know what that point is until we've past it.

It will hit us like a brick wall when we start experiencing actual environmental ramifications for this, too. Ocean acidification, the methane clathrate gun, some of the most serious climate issues that we've identified aren't even within the window of public discussion. The Green New Deal isn't even close to being passed. I can't even imagine America pulling together to pass a boring infrastructure bill right now. I…

It's even worse. Fighting climate change, which seemingly already is controversial, is purely about human self preservation. It doesn't address biodiversity, pollution, habitat destruction, the oceans being empty, none of it.

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

#137

Post by bumby »

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.…

>There is zero profit motive on a military base.

And yet, the military is one of last institutions that the American public still has faith in. It's almost as if people realize there can be many motives, beyond profit, that drive people to act in a certain way.

I'm fairly blown away on a regular basis by how otherwise smart people revert to utterly simplistic models of the world.

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

#138

Post by bpicolo »

beerandt wrote: post #105
openasocket wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Hawaii had iirc 14 species of birds on the list that were all native to either one island or a portion of one, with some preferring certain altitudes or only living on certain plateaus, etc. The funny thing about Hawaii though, is that there are only two or three (extremely isolated) places that remain with any true Hawaiian plant habitat, because Polynesians brought their own plants with them that almost universally…

The introduction of the mongoose to hawaii was a big problem for bird biodiversity

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

#139

Post by exporectomy »

anonAndOn wrote: post #112
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…

Those narrowly defined species might be the only thing keeping other species alive either directly (eg, pollinators) or indirectly (eg, biome creators). When individual species disappear, we often lose much more as collateral damage.

This seems to the basic understanding most people have. At school, they teach you about food webs and how breaking one link can ruin everything. That's an enticing idea but is it really true? I'm sure there have been some known cases or it wouldn't be in the text books, but is it common enough to get worried about every obscure species?

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

#140

Post by BitwiseFool »

jakemauer wrote: post #68
_gmnw wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article it sounds like invasive species, plus the fact that we have royally screwed up the local ecosystem. For instance — white-tailed deer are growing exponentially, eating all the underbrush and outcompeting other animals, and they have no/few natural predators left. I agree that not much has changed since the 80s, I think it's just catching up to us now.

White-tailed deer have only recently recovered from over-hunting and returned to their pre-colonization population levels.[1] Do you have a source that frames their growth as exponential? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-tailed_deer#Population_a...

The Hawaiian deer population follows boom and bust cycles. They were introduced for hunting purposes, have no natural predators, and tend to mess up the ecosystem so badly via overgrazing that they end up dying off and then recovering.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/01/molokais-fabled-axis-deer-...

I have no idea about exponential growth outside of Hawaii, though.

Post reply on HN