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

181–190 of 243 posts

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

#181

Post by WalterBright »

jussij wrote: post #163
WalterBright wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The USSR was a communists country. There is a world of difference between Social Democratic (i.e. socialism) countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway for example and the USSR. The hint is right there in the title, democratic. The USSR never had a functioning democracy.

Democracy never made socialism competitive with free markets. Democracy in Seattle led to the government purchase of port-a-potties at $250,000 each and $12,000,000 per mile bike lane striping. All involved were comfortably re-elected.

Norway pumps 20% of its GDP out of the ground.

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

#182

Post by WalterBright »

dTal wrote: post #147
WalterBright wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My posts here often talk about "internalizing the externalities" by putting taxes on externalities like pollution. The tax rate would be higher the more dangerous they are.

Free markets do not imply being free to hurt others or destroy others' property. A proper function of government is to protect people and property.

For example, I would not ban gasoline. I would tax the carbon content of fuels to reflect their true cost to the environment.

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

#183

Post by bumby »

beerandt wrote: post #171
bumby wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because the argument isn't for regulation, it's against lobbying and it's against having a government that's influenced by corporatism/ capitalism (because that's largely what lobbying is). Which pretty clearly makes the alternative socialism / communism, depending on how you want to define them.

Ok, I was reading that the alternative to current lobbying was to regulate the practice. How are you interpreting the "against lobbying" side of the argument?

Lobbying is about the right to petition the government; I don't see the direct line to socialism/communism, which is generally more concerned with the means of production. I don't think there is "clearly" a connection but rather one used to shoehorn a divisive and emotional topic.

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

#185

Post by postingawayonhn »

asdff wrote: post #121
jjk166 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No amount of "cleaning up our act" will undo damage already done. The solution is always technology because that's what technology is - solutions to problems. Changing behavior can allow you to avoid a problem, but only technology will fix a problem you've failed to avoid.

I think what OP was implying is that the solution is always posited as in some future technology just on the horizon. We will save the day in the final act of the trilogy, this is just the empire strikes back, right? Except that's not where our solution to this problem lies. We have all the technology we need to be carbon neutral today, namely in the form of nuclear power. In fact, Nixon planned on 1000 nuclear power…

> I think what OP was implying is that the solution is always posited as in some future technology just on the horizon.

That shouldn't be surprising. New problems present themselves all the time and it then takes X amount of time to develop a technology solution to them.

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

#186

Post by bumby »

beerandt wrote: post #168
Johnny555 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. I'm not sure that's really a "perverse incentive". By hiding, destroying, or not reporting the endangered species, they're going to develop the land and harm the species. But if there were no endangered species act making them afraid of the end…

The incentive is to kill/not-kill the animals, not necessarily protect the habitat. The only fix I can see is making it a worthwhile rational decision: incentives for reporting endangered animals that are worth more than the value in developing the property. But that has it's own pitfalls and potentials for abuse.

>The incentive is…not necessarily to protect the habit

Except many of the incentives explicitly state the goal is to protect habitat.

“How does a CCA or CCAA help species? These voluntary agreements reduce or remove identified threats to a species. Examples of beneficial activities include measures for restoring or enhancing habitat, expanding or establishing habitat…”

https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/CCAs.pdf

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

#187

Post by mumblemumble »

OJFord wrote: post #62
mumblemumble wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the very very least, "exhaustive" and "exhausting" are potential synonyms. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/exhaustive#Adjective I'd argue that definition 2 is also a decent fit, and definition 1 is acceptable if you permit mild hyperbole. (Which I'd advise doing, as mild hyperbole is more-or-less the default register of Standard American English.)

> mild hyperbole is more-or-less the default register of Standard American English Well as a speaker of British English, I suppose that's where I fell down. They're very much not synonyms as far as I'm concerned, my 'exhausting' was a joke, being 'very tiring, causing exhaustion' vs. the 'every possible element, comprehensive' from your Wiktionary link for 'exhaustive'. You can't possibly check everywhere. I don't sa…

It seems believable? I definitely don't intend to accuse you of extinction denialism. But I would believe it's one of those subtle differences between American English and other dialects. I frequently get the impression that, when it comes to range of expression, my native dialect is a bit like music mastering in the CD era: no medium intensity anymore; instead everything's pushed up against - and being clipped by - the upper limit of the dynamic range.

This is a dialect where "awesome" doesn't mean anything remotely like "awe-inspiring", except in books that were written prior to the late 20th century.

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

#188

Post by xxpor »

beerandt wrote: post #155
beerandt wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. But what gets really interesting is re-introduction of endangered species, like with sandhill cranes being re-introduced to Louisiana (transplants from other surviving populations). Is government introduction of an endangered species on/near pr…

>considered a "taking" under the constitution, or should it be?

Perhaps, but you'd also have to consider Euclidian zoning to be a taking. And that'll never happen.

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

#189

Post by LanceH »

Johnny555 wrote: post #164
beerandt wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. But what gets really interesting is re-introduction of endangered species, like with sandhill cranes being re-introduced to Louisiana (transplants from other surviving populations). Is government introduction of an endangered species on/near pr…

There's also the perverse incentives of developers and farmers not wanting endangered species to be "discovered" on their property because of the restrictions that will incur. I'm not sure that's really a "perverse incentive". By hiding, destroying, or not reporting the endangered species, they're going to develop the land and harm the species. But if there were no endangered species act making them afraid of the end…

The "perverse incentive" is that people who might otherwise be hospitable to a reintroduced animal will likely lose control of their property if they do anything to help. They could put out feeders, cull predators or provide habitat. Instead they are encouraged (if they want to keep control of their property) to be as uninviting to these animals as possible.

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

#190

Post by shusaku »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #50

In theory, species should be going extinct all the time as the climate changes, from ecological changes, invasive species, new species forming, etc. The real question, is the rate of species going extinct increasing? (I believe the answer to that is yes). But the mere headline “species goes extinct” should make us react “yeah, that’s how evolution works”.

“That’s how evolution works” isn’t a good framework once rational creatures (supposedly us) are involved. If we found a species of delicious pigs in a local area and ate them all, we don’t get to rest on the “well the overall rate of extinction isn’t historically high”. When species go extinct due to loss of habitat (because we destroyed it) or invasive species (that we introduced), it’s definitely worth reflecting and trying to make smarter decisions in the future.

There probably is an argument though that asks “by preserving the current species, are we missing out on new species that would emerge from the destruction?” So I admit it’s not so simple. But Im just trying so say that because we can make choices, we can’t just say “that’s nature”

Post reply on HN