Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here • Hacker News Board

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#21

Post by alphapapa » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:41 AM UTC

cactusface wrote: post #12

[deleted] wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> If one is happening within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution, the cause is not exactly a mystery. Lots of things happened within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to show causation. To be clear, I believe humans have caused this problem, but how is it even possible to claim scientific knowledge of it? Where is your control experiment…

It's nice to see someone who is reasonable, who admits we can't prove it scientifically.

But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational.

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#22

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:45 AM UTC

codecamper wrote: post #5

People, cows, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats. Corn, wheat, rice. What else do you need? I've been out driving across Europe for the past year. What strikes you about Europe is that almost every square meter of it is man controlled. The most wildlife they have are a few deer and wild boar. Even squirrels are rare.

Besides bio-diversity being 'nice' it is also a source of stability. The fewer species there are and the more of those few species we have the more susceptible those few species are to pathogens that wipe out those species. Monocultures are a risk.

Of course there are some counter-balancing effects as well, such as that if you really only have those few species plenty of diseases will lose their reservoir hosts.

Eco-systems are fragile, any attempt so far to create a stand-alone biosphere that I know about has failed.

I also miss the oceans in your little table and I think those + all the oxygen generating plants and trees are really rather important for life on Earth. And those plants rely on insects for their pollination. And those insects in turn are kept in check by all the predators on insects which are missing from your list as well. And so on...

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#23

Post by alphapapa » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:47 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #18

alphapapa wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to HN theory, your post should be downvoted. It doesn't add anything to the discussion. The downvotes are no surprise. That's what one gets for expressing an unpopular opinion. It's disappointing, though, for people to downvote instead of responding with counter-arguments. But, again, no surprise.

I'm asking a genuine question! Do you want to know why people are downvoting you, or are you just ranting about pro-communists trying to squash your opinion? I mean, don't you think the downvotes are because you say ridiculous nonsense like HN is heavily left leaning and has enough pro-communists to down vote your posts? (Because that requires not just enough Reds to down vote but a lack of non-Reds to supply correct…

If you want to tell me why you think my comment was downvoted, go ahead. If you don't, don't. I'm not going to play some kind of "If you ask me, I will tell you. Please ask me so I can tell you!" game.

My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning. Not necessarily pro-communist, but the left does also lean toward communist and socialist ideas. If you disagree with one of those assertions, feel free to say why. I might be wrong about HN's readership, but that is my impression.

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#24

Post by alphapapa » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:50 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #22

codecamper wrote: post #5

People, cows, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats. Corn, wheat, rice. What else do you need? I've been out driving across Europe for the past year. What strikes you about Europe is that almost every square meter of it is man controlled. The most wildlife they have are a few deer and wild boar. Even squirrels are rare.

Besides bio-diversity being 'nice' it is also a source of stability. The fewer species there are and the more of those few species we have the more susceptible those few species are to pathogens that wipe out those species. Monocultures are a risk. Of course there are some counter-balancing effects as well, such as that if you really only have those few species plenty of diseases will lose their reservoir hosts. Eco-…

> Eco-systems are fragile, any attempt so far to create a stand-alone biosphere that I know about has failed.

From another perspective, the earth's ecosystems are robust. Life on this planet has yet to become extinct, despite the universe's "trying" several times. When one species declines, another takes its place. One ecosystem declines, another increases.

Isn't this just the Lion King, the Circle of Life and all that?

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#25

Post by anon1385 » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:51 AM UTC

alphapapa wrote: post #11

[deleted] wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> I assume you’ve never studied biology? I assume you've never studied statistics? Or shouldn't you know that correlation does not equal causation? See, I can make unfounded assumptions too. > Or maybe you wouldn’t care if humans go extinct? You are full of assumptions, aren't you? It's just amazing how people think we are so powerful and can affect nature to such an extent. But it's like an ant trying to trip an ele…

Why do you think small things can't have large effects?

I expect you were asked about your knowledge of biology (although it could have been pretty much any other science) because small things have large effects all the time and even a basic knowledge of any of those fields would provide you with plenty of examples of small things having large effects. It's quite bizarre to see somebody accusing others of logical fallacies while making such a basic logical error.

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#26

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:53 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #22

codecamper wrote: post #5

People, cows, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats. Corn, wheat, rice. What else do you need? I've been out driving across Europe for the past year. What strikes you about Europe is that almost every square meter of it is man controlled. The most wildlife they have are a few deer and wild boar. Even squirrels are rare.

Besides bio-diversity being 'nice' it is also a source of stability. The fewer species there are and the more of those few species we have the more susceptible those few species are to pathogens that wipe out those species. Monocultures are a risk. Of course there are some counter-balancing effects as well, such as that if you really only have those few species plenty of diseases will lose their reservoir hosts. Eco-…

[deleted]

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#27

Post by anon1385 » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:57 AM UTC

alphapapa wrote: post #21

cactusface wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one is happening within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution, the cause is not exactly a mystery. Lots of things happened within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to show causation. To be clear, I believe humans have caused this problem, but how is it even possible to claim scientific knowledge of it? Where is your control experiment…

It's nice to see someone who is reasonable, who admits we can't prove it scientifically. But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational.

>But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational.

Give me an example of something that is knowable with absolute certainty.

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#28

Post by alphapapa » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:58 AM UTC

ealexhudson wrote: post #20

alphapapa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the other four times? Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control? The climate is our fault, the species are our fault--everything is humanity's fault, clearly. I guess we should all go live on the asteroids where there's nothing but rock. But then we'd be guilty of ruining a perfectly good asteroid belt... So I guess the "greenest" solu…

In all honesty, the only time we should care about is the one in front of us. Is it possible there are "natural forces and cycles at work"? Sure, but throw your hands up and say "oh, it's possibly beyond our comprehension"? Good grief, no. We should try to comprehend everything, and human induced global warming is the best hypothesis fitting the available evidence. Of course there are other possibilities, but this is…

Respectfully, I think you are exaggerating the risks. This is probably not the place to debate AGW and climate change, but not only are there many reasons to doubt AGW, there are also points to be made in favor of global warming, such as increased crop yields and arable lands, more habitable land, etc.

As usual, the question is one of balancing risks. It does not seem likely that, even if AGW occurs, it will prove harmful--the opposite may be the case. It also does not seem likely that we could reverse AGW, if it were occurring.

But what does seem likely is that, by attempting to reverse it, we would cause real harm to real people, right now. People are talking about people starving and living in poverty--well if we deny the developing world the use of fossil fuels, they are going to keep starving and living in poverty. It seems hypocritical to me for someone to advocate helping the poor and hungry while at the same time advocate trying to stop global warming. Absent free energy, both can't happen.

The only other alternative is population control: that would solve both the starving-people problem and the global warming problem.

And, if you notice, that's exactly what people like Ehrlich have advocated: population control.

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#29

Post by cactusface » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:58 AM UTC

alphapapa wrote: post #21

cactusface wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If one is happening within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution, the cause is not exactly a mystery. Lots of things happened within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to show causation. To be clear, I believe humans have caused this problem, but how is it even possible to claim scientific knowledge of it? Where is your control experiment…

It's nice to see someone who is reasonable, who admits we can't prove it scientifically. But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational.

We operate on beliefs all the time. For example, the belief that science is good.

We've destroyed a lot of natural habitats, and we know that these habitats contain a great deal of biodiversity. We just don't know what would have happened if we hadn't destroyed those habitats. My guess is that we wouldn't be facing a mass extinction event, but there's no way to check.

Even if there was only a 10% chance humans were responsible, I would still rather play it safe than ignore the issue.

Re: Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

#30

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 9:59 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #26

jacquesm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides bio-diversity being 'nice' it is also a source of stability. The fewer species there are and the more of those few species we have the more susceptible those few species are to pathogens that wipe out those species. Monocultures are a risk. Of course there are some counter-balancing effects as well, such as that if you really only have those few species plenty of diseases will lose their reservoir hosts. Eco-…

[deleted]

You mis-read that sentence and the one before it I think. That was related to all the other oxygen generating plants and trees that rely on insects for their pollination.