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

81–90 of 113 posts

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

#81

Post by CalRobert »

bashmelek wrote: post #74

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 ev…

I can only speak to my own experience, but buying a bit of sheep grazing land and slowly nursing it back has brought me great joy. The field is full of flowers and even has ground nesting birds, where before there was only close-grazed rye grass.

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

#82

Post by MrOwnPut »

delecti wrote: post #68
JasonFruit wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guarantee nobody's going to say that.

And I don't necessarily think they should, I just think language is a fun toy. From context it's clear what they meant, I thought it was interesting to find the most precise way of conveying the concept. I don't think that level of precision is needed for this discussion, except as a "proof of concept" of sorts.

I certainly appreciated the breakdown.

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

#83

Post by chitowneats »

oliveshell wrote: post #65
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.

I'll admit here that I was biased by the apparently dismissive tone of your initial comment. This is a fair point that I agree with.

And I'll admit that I'm exhausted by eco-nostalgia and eco-doomerism, which led me to comment dismissively. I understand how that can be off-putting and unpersuasive.

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

#84

Post by JasonFruit »

MrOwnPut wrote: post #82
delecti wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I don't necessarily think they should, I just think language is a fun toy. From context it's clear what they meant, I thought it was interesting to find the most precise way of conveying the concept. I don't think that level of precision is needed for this discussion, except as a "proof of concept" of sorts.

I certainly appreciated the breakdown.

I enjoyed it too, don't get me wrong, but as much as I like playing with the cruft in the (English) language spec, constructions like this are write-only.

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

#85

Post by beedeebeedee »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #80
beedeebeedee wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 goo…

> Yes, with all that implies.

I'm having a hard time responding in a way that meets the Hacker News guidelines. I don't want to attribute to you the implications (slavery, slaughter, environmental destruction, etc), because I have a hard time believing you actually mean that (or perhaps you thought I was only referring to the mineral aspect of the world and not the life that lives in it). I understand that you might object to slavery being implicit in your belief (because you make a special carve out for only humans mattering)- but understand that up until recently, in many cultures many people were not considered human.

The most substantive thing I can suggest is to read Hegel's master slave dialectic, and consider the upshot- that by viewing others as only being instrumental, you inhibit the development of your own consciousness.

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

#86

Post by anonporridge »

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?

Only? No. Mostly? Yes. For at least a couple of reasons.

Because we humans seem to be the only creatures that have ever existed that have even been able to pose the question of what makes Earth "important". That level of consciousness is special and worth protecting and expanding at all costs. It's more special and magically generative than any other creature that we know to exist or previously exist.

Because Earth without us is a dead man walking. The complete extinction of all complex life on this planet is already baked into the future as the sun expands and boils the oceans in 0.5-1 billion years. It seems to me exceedingly unlikely that any other spacefaring civilization will emerge after us if we fail. Even if you think other forms of Earth life are more "important" than us, the continuation of our human civilization is the only chance this other life has at having a longer existence (on other worlds) than this baked in timeline.

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

#87

Post by biomcgary »

oliveshell wrote: post #54
DangitBobby wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may be two extremes, but that doesn't mean both of them are wrong or "unhealthy".

I'm sorry if I didn't communicate clearly. I think extremism is obviously very clearly unhealthy by definition. I have yet to encounter a single scenario in my entire existence wherein the fully-to-one-side-of-any-spectrum-you-might-imagine "extreme" point of view on how to solve any particular problem has been the best, most useful one (to my problem-solving brain, at least). We humans tend to do this thing where, w…

Are you familiar with the Overton window? According to it, you will never see successful extremes because what is considered extreme changes before the world does. I think you can find plenty of examples of historical extremism that is now normal (and "healthy").

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

#88

Post by biomcgary »

myshpa wrote: post #70

Relevant: "Wild mammal biomass has declined by 85% since the rise of humans. But we can turn things around by reducing the amount of land we use for agriculture." https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline "Over the last 1.5 million years, the mean mass of hunted mammals decreased by more than 98%. The evidence points toward one main culprit: humans." https://ourworldindata.org/large-mammals-extinction

Humans are the primary face of natural selection in the modern world? For mammals, certainly, but probably also for most non-microscopic species.

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

#89

Post by rektide »

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.

Biodiversity & ecosystems seem obviously existentially important to the long term survival of humanity. Even if we're not sure what exactly would kill us (first) from acidifying the oceans, killing all the trees, melting the ice-caps, & killing most wild mammals.

The enormous risk we've created against there being a human future. I for one hope for a sustainable flourishing, and find any other avenue not merely uninteresting, but actively malicious & evil. Global gaian awareness is absolutely required, or you are just a primitive wild mammal.

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

#90

Post by oliveshell »

CalRobert wrote: post #79
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.

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.

I completely agree-- and, upon re-reading, it wasn't entirely fair of me to cast your comment as representing an "unhealthy extreme", so I'm sorry about that. That's what I get for trying to make a nuanced point hastily!
Post reply on HN