Live data from Hacker News

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

science.org

91–100 of 113 posts

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

#91

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 anal…

I'm on a deep strange trip into the differences between "animated" and "inanimated" entities with only the loose idea of "emergent phenomena" to "guide me" on this winding road

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

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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").

My use of the word "extremism" may have been slightly misleading; by "extremes" above, I don't mean "ideas or movements popularly considered extreme", but rather literal extremes in the space of possible solutions to a given problem.

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

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

That is a very reasonable stance, and I appreciate it being articulated. Baked into it is an appreciation and respect for life and consciousness, which I respect.

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

#94

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.

Ponder this question - if humans were removed from the Earth, would evil cease to exist?

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

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're right that I do reject your implication of extending the ethics of human slavery to non-human life and granting it shared tenant owner rights to the Earth. I find it surprising that you struggle to respond to this idea because it is not a fringe one. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it is the predominant View held by humans on this planet about their relation to the natural world.

As an aside, I also reject your claim that slaves were historically considered subhuman on factual grounds. For most of human history slaves were considered humans and subjugation was justified simply as a matter of having the might and means to do so. In a historical context, the idea of slaves as subhuman is primarily a New Philosophy developed in the Antebellum South.

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

#96
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

It depends on the perspective you take. From my comfortable place here in Western society, 2C of global warming isn't going to destroy my quality of life. Goods might get more expensive, certain kinds of food products may become scarcer or disappear There might be more conflict "over there" because of water scarcity and famine. I may experience more political instability and degradation of some of the social fabric. But my day to day life probably won't change. However, if you talk about it from the perspective of the people who will actually bear the brunt of it, it's hard to see it as anything other than an unmitigated disaster.

Pessimism can be as toxic as unfounded optimisim when it's not strongly rooted in the reality of the situation. And to be clear. 1.5C is baked in at this point [1][2] and I suspect 2C is too but it's failed to obtain enough scientific consensus to get political buy in (for some reason scientific consensus in this space is extremely conservative). To me a realistic evaluation is that any "good news" there is is a drop in the bucket against the tsunami headed our way. Maybe we get lucky with fusion or some other scientific breakthrough. But I've not observed a pattern for humanity getting lucky in that way.

I also don't think it's demotivating to talk about it in real terms. For example, California's 2035 plan for fossil fuel cars is likely too little to late. It's better than nothing but also a lot can happen in 12 years to undermine that plan (it's also a pretty poorly thought out plan but maybe it'll work out well anyway). The US federal government is more lackadaisical about it with a plan to get to net zero by 2050. But you know what you don't hear politicians talking about? Net zero doesn't achieve any climate goals. Because we've been emitting so much CO2 for so long and will continue to do so for decades more, it's a runaway cycle. We would need to get to a substantial net negative to undo the warming that's baked in and to realistically try to avoid 2c. Lots of smart people are working on the problem. I think they've got the best sense of the urgency and import of the work and I don't think pessimism demotivates them as much as insufficient funding and legislative priorities.

[1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1129912

> There’s “no credible pathway to 1.5C in place” today, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) insisted in a new report, despite legally binding promises made at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference to prevent average temperatures rising by more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels

[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-will-li...

> “Individually, in private, I don’t think I know of many climate scientists that think 1.5 C is possible (I could count them on a hand),” Glen Peters, a climate policy expert and research director at the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Norway, said in an email to E&E News.

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

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're right that I do reject your implication of extending the ethics of human slavery to non-human life and granting it shared tenant owner rights to the Earth. I find it surprising that you struggle to respond to this idea because it is not a fringe one. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it is the predominant View held by humans on this planet about their relation to the natural world. As an aside, I…

> I find it surprising that you struggle to respond to this idea because it is not a fringe one. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it is the predominant View held by humans on this planet about their relation to the natural world.

I think you are correct that this is the predominant view held by humans, but it doesn't mean it is justified. It is hard to dispute it quickly without invoking something like god, which is something I am uncomfortable doing. What I can do is start with something like Descartes's meditation. Without his ability to invoke god, we are left with the paradox of the world being ultimately unknowable. Likewise if you start from the idea that there is a real world. At best, you become committed to the paradox that we are living within our own imaginations somehow embedded in our brains. From any other starting point, at some point in our reasoning we are led to a deep paradox, which seems to be a defining aspect of our consciousness. Ultimately, the world is unknowable and the best we can do is be honest, humble and do our best with what we have.

That leads me to why I reject what we both consider to be the predominant view held by humans. If we trust natural history, we can see that the mammalian anatomy has been conserved for at least 65 million years. Mammals adapted to all kinds of environments, grew large, grew small, etc, but fundamentally, the mammalian anatomy remains the same (even the whales have essentially the same anatomy as any other mammal). As long as the physics of our world remains constant, function is determined by structure. That means that the same functions that underlie our experience underlie other mammals. The only major difference with humans is that we grew out a section of our brain (the neocortex), which gives us greater ability to visualize, synthesize the input from our senses, develop speech, and interrupt other parts of our nervous system (i.e., like using meditation to quiet the mind, dampen the response from the amygdala, etc).

With that understanding, it seems deeply wrong to subjugate other consciousnesses. It seems like instead of having a "tenant owner rights" view of Earth, we should view ourselves as gardeners cultivating the planet out of a sense of beauty and love that coincides with helping ourselves and other creatures.

That is one thing I am deeply committed to. Humans exist as the most exquisite and beautiful branch of life and are the greatest care-givers on this planet. We not only give of our bodies like the other mammals to nurture, and develop groups to care for individuals, we also care so much that we care about truth, and continue to grapple with it even when it seems out of reach.

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

#98
post #47

For all the intelligence individual humans exhibit, humanity as a whole behaves indistinguishably from a slime mold [1]. If we treat humanity as an organism where individuals humans are cells, then the behavior of the organism is to just spread mindlessly across the planet and extract resources until they're exhausted and it dies off. It seems that there's a phase transition happening at scale where all the internal…

The same is true of every living creature or cellular life on the planet, so it shouldn't be very surprising to draw similarities.

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

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> because you make a special carve out for only humans mattering

Your relating of an anthropocentric ethics to support for slavery does not make sense to me. What does the previous horrors of human slavery have to do with our relationship to non-humans?

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

#100
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wonder what it'd taste like!

That gets to a classic "xkcd what if" - Pile of Viruses https://what-if.xkcd.com/80/ > What if every virus in the world were collected into one area? How much volume would they take up and what would they look like? And remember that the images have mouse over text.

Haha, this is awesome! Thank you!

Here's another question... if I drank a spoonful of HIV, would I get HIV? Would it even survive my stomach acid? I suppose it depends on whether it found its way into my blood, right? Or would mere exposure to the mucous membranes in my mouth be enough? You can't, as far as I know, transfer HIV by kissing, but maybe if there was lots of it?

Post reply on HN