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

Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#71

Post by beedeebeedee »

chitowneats wrote: post #57
oliveshell wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And with your comment, we now have both unhealthy extremes represented, viewpoint-wise. We need not spend all day tearfully mourning how Earth once was, yet we also clearly shouldn't tarmac the whole thing and turn it into a Costco. It is very possible to embrace industrialized existence while acknowledging the importance of, and promoting, biodiversity.

Biodiversity is important insofar as it facilitates human flourishing. Flowery poetry about An Idealized Past doesn't have anything to say about that. Therefore, it is uninteresting.

So you believe that the whole world is only important to the extent that it serves us?

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#72

Post by Jensson »

CalRobert wrote: post #26

We live in an empty, denuded world, a faint shadow of its former self. Even "green" Ireland which sells itself as a natural place is an ecological wasteland. From Whittled Away, by Padraic Fogarty https://iwt.ie/product/whittled-away/ """ In 1623 it was reported chat Ireland was exporting 20,000 tons of pilchard annually.4 To pm this figure in perspective, it is over four times the toal landings for all species from…

Just look at google earth photos anywhere. Its all just large patches of farmland. Only exceptions I've found are Africa, deserts and far north/south. Pretty soon Africa will probably be all farmland as well.

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#73

Post by eatsyourtacos »

cjlars wrote: post #64

A simple tree chart is a good way to understand this: https://images.app.goo.gl/2CBG9Se4vPB1jaMY9 Animals in general are only a tiny sliver of life on this planet. What most people think of as 'nature' i.e. large animals that a child can name are vastly outweighed each by worms, molluscs, bacteria, insects, and of course -- by a couple orders of magnitude -- plants.

Thanks for that. Now can we please break down the arthropods into spiders and non-spiders so you can alleviate my fear that spiders rule over us on this planet.

My fear of spiders is valid- all I'm saying. There must have been some bad shit in our history to instill such a fear into us..

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#74

Post by bashmelek »

I feel woefully disconnected from the natural order in this day and age. There is so much variety and beauty out there that we remove for the sake of maximizing material utility. Even in bovines, I recently learned that there is a lot diversity, but we hardly ever see it: the diversity is contrary to the maximizing. I feel that humanity has the power, to both solve our problems and preserve something of nature, to even make use of it, if only it were valued enough.

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#76

Post by chitowneats »

Sebb767 wrote: post #63
chitowneats wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great joke. It makes a good point; almost. I'm still waiting for the doomsday that's always just around the corner. We're technologists here. Let's focus on solving problems rather than trying to turn back the clock.

It's not a joke. Billions of Dinosaurs, back then most of all live, have been wiped of the earth, with no human input at all. A 'healthy' earth is quite relative. It's easy to frame climate change as some hippies protesting to save some obscure insect that nobody heard of and that will just end up on the list of species to have died, which is quite full of things we human did not cause anyway. It seems a lot more urg…

I'm agreeing with that part. The part I disagree with is that we are somehow "fucked". We have lots of smart people working on that problem. Which is why we've actually had some good climate news lately. Doomer-ish statements like, "we're fucked", are just as likely to lead to demotivation and panic as they are to helpful solutions or action. So I avoid that mindset completely.

It is a funny punchline. That's why I say it's a great joke. But let's not read too much into that.

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#77

Post by happytoexplain »

donnowhy wrote: post #44

under this logic, a sack of lead ought to 'rule over' a living animal because of being heavier

Analogies almost universally accomplish nothing but creating arguments unrelated to the topic. Usually this is because, when we think of an analogy, we change something critical without explaining why we've changed it. In this case, the article compares living animals to living animals, while you have changed one side to a non-living material. The phrase "by that logic..." is a big red flag that this category of analogy is about to follow.

You may certainly argue that mass comparison among living organisms isn't useful or at least interesting in the context in which the article discusses it, but you haven't done that.

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#78

Post by CalRobert »

chitowneats wrote: post #37
CalRobert wrote: post #26

We live in an empty, denuded world, a faint shadow of its former self. Even "green" Ireland which sells itself as a natural place is an ecological wasteland. From Whittled Away, by Padraic Fogarty https://iwt.ie/product/whittled-away/ """ In 1623 it was reported chat Ireland was exporting 20,000 tons of pilchard annually.4 To pm this figure in perspective, it is over four times the toal landings for all species from…

Ah yes. An empty, denuded world, with unprecedented flourishing for our friends, family, and fellow humans. This type of nostalgia for a wild world full of disease and dangerous predators fails so utterly to motivate me.

People can differ but philosophically I find it distressing if our own comfort means obliterating virtually all wilderness.

More worryingly, though, we are dependent on the natural world and its diversity. And even things like "the world we have now but with less meat in our diet" or "the world we have now but it's easier to walk, cycle, or take public transportation to work" would be an enormous improvement.

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#79

Post by CalRobert »

oliveshell wrote: post #46
chitowneats wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes. An empty, denuded world, with unprecedented flourishing for our friends, family, and fellow humans. This type of nostalgia for a wild world full of disease and dangerous predators fails so utterly to motivate me.

And with your comment, we now have both unhealthy extremes represented, viewpoint-wise. We need not spend all day tearfully mourning how Earth once was, yet we also clearly shouldn't tarmac the whole thing and turn it into a Costco. It is very possible to embrace industrialized existence while acknowledging the importance of, and promoting, biodiversity.

For what it's worth, I am not advocating some sort of primitivist disease-ridden Utopia where bears roam by my door. I am saying that we have utterly destroyed huge swaths of the animal kingdom and maybe should try not doing that.

Re: Who rules Earth? Wild mammals far outweighed by humans and domestic animals

#80

Post by s1artibartfast »

beedeebeedee wrote: post #71
chitowneats wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biodiversity is important insofar as it facilitates human flourishing. Flowery poetry about An Idealized Past doesn't have anything to say about that. Therefore, it is uninteresting.

So you believe that the whole world is only important to the extent that it serves us?

Yes, with all that implies. There may be other habitable planets in the universe but I do not care about them. I care about Earth because that is where I live. I don't think there is any meaningful trade-offs to be made between what is good for Earth the planet and what is good for humans.

That doesn't mean that I want Earth to be a hyper industrialized Forge World, but my reasoning is because that would not be a good place for humans to live.

Post reply on HN