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

Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction is here

news.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

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

#31

Post by Udo »

alphapapa wrote: post #2

> people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss." Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. > To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The…

> mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault.

Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous."

> All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling, destroying all the other species. If only the humans would go away, then the other species could live in peace.

It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so.

> Of course HN is predominantly left-leaning, so here come the downvotes

I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).

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

#32

Post by jacquesm »

alphapapa wrote: post #24
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-…

> 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 th…

Life will continue, that's for sure. Even a nuclear wipe-out will very likely not erase all traces of life from Earth.

Keep in mind that humans are also just a single species and with global air travel and enormous numbers we're setting ourselves up for a pandemic. Nature loves large numbers of well connected individuals in close proximity.

And the way we're using anti-biotics could come back to bite us.

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

#33

Post by alphapapa »

anon1385 wrote: post #25
alphapapa wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fal…

What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"?

It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be.

There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.

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

#34

Post by pfortuny »

DanBC wrote: post #13
vixen99 wrote: post #10

The hard data will be more objectively assessed if coming from someone other than Paul Ehrlich: In the 1970’s the world will undergo famines – hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death” and “[our children] will inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the 1960’s are dead.”

He was wrong, but about 21,000 people die each day from hunger or hunger related causes. That's 7.6m per year, about 115m in the 21st century. Nearly one in five children under the age of five dies from diarrhea related illnesses. And that's easilly and cheaply treated (50 US cents of oral rehydration salts).

Now try and compute the same ratio for the XIX, XVIII, XVII, etc. centuries. Really.

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

#35

Post by DanBC »

alphapapa wrote: post #23
DanBC wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> My impression is that HN's readership is mostly left-leaning.

That is because you are so far-right. Everything looks left wing from over there, even the soft right wing that makes up most of HN.

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

#36

Post by anon1385 »

alphapapa wrote: post #4
ealexhudson wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Well, current thinking is that the dinosaurs went extinct when a meteorite hit the earth. Absent a large rock or other large-scale disaster, the rate of species disappearing really does need explanation.

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…

>Is it not possible that there are natural forces and cycles at work, far larger than we can comprehend or control?

When you are presented with any situation in your life it's always possible that you have incomplete information and there is the theoretical possibility of some 'uncomprehendable' factor at work. In response to that dilemma you could refuse to ever try and make any action to improve your life because you might have misunderstood the situation. You could believe that any attempt to gain knowledge and act on that knowledge is wrong because there are always greater 'mystical' forces at play and you can never be sure if you are right. That is a radically anti-science and anti-civilisation position.

It's funny that in your desire to absolve yourself and the political and economic systems you support from any kind of responsibility you have ended up holding a position that is more politically extreme than even most radical super left wing anarcho-primitivist. Namely that any attempt to understand or interact with the world at all is futile because of mystical forces.

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

#37

Post by whibble »

alphapapa wrote: post #2

> people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss." Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. > To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The…

Well, if it helps, I agree with everything you said. I can't stand reddit. It's totally co-opted.

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

#38

Post by alphapapa »

Udo wrote: post #31
alphapapa wrote: post #2

> people are precipitating "a global spasm of biodiversity loss." Nevermind that, according to them, mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. > To history's steady drumbeat, a human population growing in numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats. The…

> mass extinctions happened already five times, and humans had nothing to do with those. But now, when it supposedly happens for a sixth time, it's our fault. Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous." > All these evil humans, farming and logging and settling,…

> I don't think that's true or fair, HN is a mix really. The problem is that your statements about extinction are objectively wrong. Being scientifically literate is not necessarily a left wing trait (however, I do make this assertion as a foreign outsider looking in, so I could be wrong).

Sure it's a mix, but it seems predominantly left to me. I may be wrong, but I don't think it's possible to prove it either way.

How are my statements about extinction objectively wrong?

> Mass extinctions happen for different reasons. What you're saying is tantamount to: "well, it was a cataclysmic volcano ice age that got us last time, so this asteroid could not possibly be dangerous."

No, you're (probably unintentionally) misrepresenting my point. It would be closer to, "We have no idea whether that asteroid is going to come anywhere near us, and even if it were, it's highly unlikely we could do anything to stop it. However, devoting enough resources to mount a significant attempt to stop it would definitely harm people. So we shouldn't start doing that until it's much clearer that 1) it's going to hit us, and 2) we could stop it."

> It's not about evil. We're transforming the planet, yes, and it's important to be mindful about it, but nobody except a very small fringe is advocating human extinction to rescue species. Instead, what we're realistically doing is gathering data on how we're impacting biodiversity, and how we can minimize that impact in the future. This is going to be a gradual process, but we've been moving in that direction for a long time and will likely continue to do so.

I disagree--evil is involved, at small and large scales. At smaller scales, people are unwilling to admit certain possibilities, because doing so would harm their careers--they are not seeking the truth, but sticking with lies, which is evil. On a larger scale, certain people want to control other people for their own gain, both in power and fortune. That is also evil.

And AGW/climate-change is a powerful vehicle to effect policy change for those in power to preserve and increase their power. CC was promoted as such a policy vehicle back in the 70s, and it's still being used for it today. Very little of the "science" is about actual facts--most of it is about politics.

This undermines the search for the truth. But people who don't recognize this accept the "data" at face value. Then they advocate trying to stop climate change. But doing that would line the pockets of certain powerful, wealthy people and corporations. And it would keep certain parties and nations in positions of weakness. This is why it is ultimately about evil. If all that was being done was "gathering data," that would be fine.

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

#39

Post by whibble »

alphapapa wrote: post #23
DanBC wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's the same on reddit. Large corporations (who are running the show) are themselves putting out this propaganda. Many are right to point out the "Large Corporations" as part of the problem. However, they don't see the greater pattern. As our world becomes ever-more automated, the labour market requires less human workforce. Once the "top" of society have completely automated their profit making, they no longer have a use for the rest of humanity. Hence the propaganda of "You lot are the problem" and everyone is like "oh yes, we're the problem".. WELL, NO. THEY are the problem. What's the solution? Cryptocurrencies and balls of steel, I guess. The whole show is organized and humans no longer form a part of the picture for the overlords so rather than clean up the environment themselves and ALLOW (yes, allow) the use of alternative CLEAN energy, their next ploy is to convince us that we're useless CO2 breathers who are taking up space in their back yard and are no longer necessary - and that "we're the problem". Well, we're THEIR problem I guess... IF we actually did something about it.

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

#40

Post by anon1385 »

alphapapa wrote: post #33
anon1385 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fal…

What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"? It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. There is a fallacy, though: that of confusi…

>Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain.

Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere.

>What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.

Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion.

Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).

Post reply on HN