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

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

#41

Post by alphapapa » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:21 AM UTC

anon1385 wrote: post #27

alphapapa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's your point?

Here's mine: We don't know for certain how big an effect we actually have. We don't know whether we are actually responsible for these events (e.g. mass extinction, climate change). But what we do know is that trying to prevent or reverse these things would definitely harm real people, right now, while making certain groups more wealthy and powerful, and keeping certain other groups poor and weak.

Therefore, we should not do what we know will certainly cause harm, unless and until we know that not doing it will certainly cause greater harm.

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

#42

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:23 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

Cod stocks collapsed because of over fishing. They recovered when we stopped fishing.

Buffalo went near extinct when we killed most of them.

The passenger pigeon went extinct when we killed all of them.

Dodos went extinct because we killed all of them.

These are all clear and direct examples.

What you're doing is dishonest - "show me something unclear and with complex causes as an example of human destruction, and then when you do I'll quibble with the small areas of doubt provided in your example even though most of science agree the cause was human".

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

#43

Post by codecamper » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:23 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #32

alphapapa wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I too am highly disturbed by the loss of ecosystems. I'm just describing the reality of what the planet is becoming & will probably continue to become. Very sad, but quite possibly true.

In reality, we could all probably continue to live on a planet that has just 20 or so species left.

Everything else, we'll have to describe to children with stories.

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

#44

Post by codecamper » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:24 AM UTC

tincholio wrote: post #16

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.

You should maybe drive to the Nordic countries...

Yes I want too, but I might be forced to eat Lutefisk!

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

#45

Post by alphapapa » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:25 AM UTC

cactusface wrote: post #29

alphapapa wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

What if trying to stop a process--which we only have a 10% chance of stopping--would have a 100% chance of harming people? Is definitely harming people "playing it safe"?

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

#46

Post by blumkvist » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:26 AM UTC

alphapapa wrote: post #28

ealexhudson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

I don't hold a strong opinion about global warming and other doomsday theories, with which we are bombareded every day, but population control has crossed my mind and I can't seem to find a reasonable con.

In an ecosystem, nature has its ways to control an overgrown population of one species or another. We humans are not as reliant on nature as other species, so there is no way for the balance to be preserved naturally. What is so atrocious about limiting parents to have only 1 child, for example? Or only two for that matter, some individuals (the number of which is growing) will never have an offspring, so the population will simply contract. What is so bad about it?

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

#47

Post by jacquesm » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:27 AM UTC

codecamper wrote: post #43

jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I too am highly disturbed by the loss of ecosystems. I'm just describing the reality of what the planet is becoming & will probably continue to become. Very sad, but quite possibly true. In reality, we could all probably continue to live on a planet that has just 20 or so species left. Everything else, we'll have to describe to children with stories.

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Chance-See-Douglas-Adams/dp/03453...

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

#48

Post by blumkvist » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:32 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…

HN is definitely left-leaning as a whole, I think it's a programmer's thing in general. The more radical ones take advantage of that and engage in subversive actions. If you take the time to read the whole threads on politically charged topics, take notes of people, follow their links, you will arrive at some disturbing conclusions.

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

#49

Post by alphapapa » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:34 AM UTC

anon1385 wrote: post #36

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…

>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 y…

> 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.

You are completely misrepresenting my position. I did not say that we should do nothing. What I am saying is that we should not do things that will definitely harm people to try to stop something that 1) we do not know will happen, and 2) we do not know we can affect.

If you are advocating doing such things, then that is an 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.

I have not said anything of the sort. You are misrepresenting me to such an extent that it's simply ridiculous. I have not said in any way that our political or economic systems are good or or well-functioning or do not cause harm. Nor have I said in any way that we should not attempt to understand or interact with the world, nor have I said anything about mystical forces.

You have accused me of thinking and saying these things in several comments now. It seems a common tactic for one side of these issues to accuse the other of taking "extreme," "anti-science," "mystical" positions. That is simply dishonest. And having demonstrated such blatant dishonesty, I don't know why anyone would believe anything else you say.

You're effectively trolling, and I won't feed you anymore.

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

#50

Post by cactusface » Sat, Jun 20, 2015, 10:35 AM UTC

alphapapa wrote: post #45

cactusface wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

What if trying to stop a process--which we only have a 10% chance of stopping--would have a 100% chance of harming people? Is definitely harming people "playing it safe"?

Can you clarify what you mean by "harm"? I think it's a judgment call as to whether we should proceed with the method to stop the extinction. For example, if it means sterilizing all humans, I would say don't do it. If it means everybody has to be vegetarian, I would say do it. If it means economic harm, then it would depend on the extent and the available measures to mitigate it.