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

141–150 of 243 posts

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

#141

Post by exporectomy »

wittycardio wrote: post #116
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…

Yup you said it best, you are indeed horrible

No. You've been indoctrinated to believe that environmentalism is like a religion so that you're a bad person for being an infidel and must not question the flimsy claims that the authorities make.

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

#142

Post by exporectomy »

fleddr wrote: post #134
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Conservation absolutely is nothing to do with care and empathy for non-human life. The proof is that one of the main tools of conservationists is mechanical and chemical killing machines to help them kill and even exterminate all the non-human life that they deem unworthy. Please don't confuse caring about life with caring about the environment. The two feelings are in direct conflict.

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

#143

Post by exporectomy »

ogaitnas wrote: post #122
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal attacks do not belong on hacker news.

How is what I said a personal attack? I sincerely hope that someone with such little regard for the environment and therefore the future of this planet isn't someone who is willingly bringing more humans to it. That isn't a personal attack but rather my personal belief on the matter.

That's called bigotry. And yes, it was a personal attack.

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

#144

Post by agilob »

jjk166 wrote: post #79
agilob wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the comment it more about what if we have technology but no space for resurrected species?

Then we wait until we have the space. There is no deadline to meet.

Pretty sure the deadline is our extinction, but after that, the animal kingdom can flourish again

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

#145

Post by OJFord »

murphyslab wrote: post #51
OJFord wrote: post #24

'Exhaustive'? They may have been exhaust ing (!) but can you really ever search exhaustively for a species?

Tens of thousands of naturalists (e.g. birders) have been looking for evidence for decades. It's a pretty wide net, particularly with citizen science platforms such as iNaturalist and eBird. As for whether it's possible, I would say yes. Environmental DNA (eDNA) sampling can be used to see if a particular species is present even if you don't visually or audibly observe the species: > eDNA is increasingly being used f…

Undeniably extensive. I don't deny it as sufficient evidence to claim extinction. I just don't think it can (or could ever) be called 'exhaustive'.

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

#146

Post by veb »

titzer wrote: post #78
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.

The future is here already, it's just not evenly distributed. There are countless examples of local ecosystems that have been entirely decimated as a direct result of human activity. It's been going on for millenia. The Tigris/Euphrates river region used be a lush, fertile paradise. Thousands of years of human agriculture has turned it into what it is today. Clear-cutting of forests throughout North America, Britain,…

I'm in NZ, and we have very large (I'd wager true wilderness) forests with native trees and fauna. Even cutting native trees on your property can be pretty bad (people get convicted for this). Unless say, the tree is about to fall on your house. We have a lot of national parks, I just would like us to get some more national marine reserves considering we have a pretty large EEZ zone around the country: https://teara.govt.nz/en/map/33830/exclusive-economic-zones (which is the forth largest in the world).

There's so much we can do better, and we are trying. Pine, etc we don't care about cutting down. Ngāi Tahu a South Island Maōri tribe actually own a lot of these forests and the idea is that when they're felled for timber, natives are grown in place. I hope they keep that up, and to be fair, they're not really in need of much more money considering they are the richest tribe in NZ as they've re-invested everything they got after the Treaty of Waitangi.

We should do more though, always.

If you ever visit, there's places in Stewart Island for example that have been completely made rodent free - and things are blooming there. On a school camp (we stayed on a yacht for a week), we got to experience a magical full moon-lit beach and got to witness all the wee kiwis come out and play. It was the most magical sight I've ever seen.

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

#147

Post by dTal »

WalterBright wrote: post #21
hanniabu wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if it’s some pesticide? or some food packaging or something What if it was? I don't expect things to change much with corporate's death grip on the government.

> I don't expect things to change much with corporate's death grip on the government. Statements like this always imply that if the government ran the businesses (socialism) things like this wouldn't happen. But the evidence is it is worse . The USSR had major problems with their heavily polluting industries, which persist today.

Bro, the government forbidding companies from using a certain pesticide because it's driving the ivory-billed woodpecker extinct isn't "socialism", man. Or if it is, then the very premise of governance is socialist. You're so desperate to attack your personal bugbear that you're thrusting it into a totally unrelated conversation by quite extravagantly strawmanning someone.

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

#148

Post by dTal »

WalterBright wrote: post #86
mcguire wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>Do you really think the Soviet Union did not have endemic corruption in government?

Literally no one thinks that or implied it in this conversation. What a non sequitur. I don't think you're even properly reading the comments you reply to.

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

#149

Post by bluejekyll »

beerandt wrote: post #85
_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…

Not the same species at all, but you just reminded me of the family of three Pileated Woodpeckers that I saw with my parents this summer in rural NY. They are really amazing looking (and bigger than I thought) birds. Hopefully more people will recognize the importance of saving our natural habitats and preserving species like these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileated_woodpecker

btw, I'm not saying this particular bread is at risk, it is not, but for how long before they are in a similar situation?

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

#150

Post by Johnny555 »

beerandt wrote: post #85
_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…

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.

The endangered species act wasn't enacted until 1973, so I think that landowner had plenty of opportunity to do what he wanted with his property.

Post reply on HN