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

We need the wolf

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 93 posts

Re: We need the wolf

#21

Post by jamil7 »

eru wrote: post #12
rorykoehler wrote: post #6

We should rewild 50% of the world and ban humans from entering without a permit. Permits should only be given to those with legitimate professional requirements.

Luckily, most of the globe is still wild. We have barely started colonizing the oceans after all. It would be interesting to rewild much of the land mass as well. However, politics is often against that. Eg see those heartfelt efforts to rescue dying towns in the Appalachians or the Great Plains in the US. Or the general subsidies for suburban / exurban living (like eg the whole structure of USPS).

The oceans might not be colonised in a traditional sense of the word but they’ve very much felt the effects of our presence and are in pretty dire shape.

Re: We need the wolf

#22

Post by onikolas7 »

IggleSniggle wrote: post #17
onikolas7 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equilibrium with lower biodiversity is more fragile and less beneficial for us[0]. Having said that, we are _not_ nature . We make conscious decisions and so we should hold ourselves in a higher standard (both from a practical and moral perspective). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Human_health Re-reading my comment I realize it sounds like low-key creationism BS which was not my intention.

Yes to your link, no to “humans / conscious decision-making are not nature.” Moreover, morality is itself a naturally emergent phenomenon of evolution. Charles Darwin even proposed this, and we have found it to hold true again and again.

"morality is itself a naturally emergent phenomenon of evolution".

Sure, but now that we have this evolutionary mechanism we also have more responsibility than cyanobacteria (which is what my original comment was about).

Re: We need the wolf

#23

Post by vixen99 »

eru wrote: post #9
onikolas7 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equilibrium with lower biodiversity is more fragile and less beneficial for us[0]. Having said that, we are _not_ nature . We make conscious decisions and so we should hold ourselves in a higher standard (both from a practical and moral perspective). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity#Human_health Re-reading my comment I realize it sounds like low-key creationism BS which was not my intention.

If tomorrow we find proof that dolphins make conscious decisions, will they cease to be nature? I suspect whether to draw the line to make 'nature' include or exclude humans is very similar to whether to include or exclude the observer in quantum mechanics. Both perspectives are entirely reasonable, but they are useful in different circumstances.

Tomorrow? Of course animals make conscious decisions. This orangutan had, prior to implemention, made a conscious decision to build a hammock by tying a sheet to the cage bars.

https://roaring.earth/orangutan-builds-a-hammock/

Re: We need the wolf

#24

Post by black_puppydog »

roenxi wrote: post #2

> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance. I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium. Also…

Came here to write this, but you formulated it much clearer than I would have. Personally, I'd prefer a world with those animals. But that's an ideological (spiritual?) stance.

I recommend Adam Curtis' "All watched over by machines of loving grace" as an exploration of the theme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_o...

Re: We need the wolf

#26

Post by mulmen »

roenxi wrote: post #2

> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance. I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium. Also…

> If we can make the world work without wolves

This is a very big if and of great consequence to humans. We make conscious decisions but we are not omniscient.

There is indeed a cosmic doom awaiting us if we blindly follow our hubris. We can't know the consequences of life without wolves. Our ability to realize that and acknowledge what we do not know then override our instincts is what separates us from the cyanobacteria.

Re: We need the wolf

#27

Post by vagrantJin »

rorykoehler wrote: post #6

We should rewild 50% of the world and ban humans from entering without a permit. Permits should only be given to those with legitimate professional requirements.

Hahaha. I dont disagree with the sentiment but I think its misplaced.

People are well and truly capable of living with nature without killing whole forests. Its a matter of putting our interests above those of others that is the issue.

Eg. The government permits loggers to cut down 1000 year old trees in a forest, permits mutlinational Ag companies to cut down and burn much of the forest to plant some inane plant species that has marginal benefit to squeeze out an extra 10 cents on a human consumed product because ultimately the quarterly results have to improve. All these abstractions have seemingly nothing to do with a dead forest.

We should have instead, enforcable policy that puts a high price on environmental projects of any scope larger than..say an acre. It would force companies to innovate and invest in R&D. Use those big brains.

Re: We need the wolf

#28

Post by mulmen »

black_puppydog wrote: post #24
roenxi wrote: post #2

> Perhaps predators are needed to bring nature back into balance. I don't really think this theme was sustained through the article, but it just starts off in the wrong spot. Nature isn't balanced in any meaningful sense. It lurches from one equilibrium to another in a haphazard way [0]. Equilibriums only appear because all the many unequilibriums die out, so by evolution everything rapidly reaches equilibrium. Also…

Came here to write this, but you formulated it much clearer than I would have. Personally, I'd prefer a world with those animals. But that's an ideological (spiritual?) stance. I recommend Adam Curtis' "All watched over by machines of loving grace" as an exploration of the theme. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Watched_Over_by_Machines_o...

I'm not so sure, we are still largely natural creatures. We are more nature than machine, certainly. Air is far more important to me than electricity. Wolves serve an important role in the ecosystem, it is unclear to me that we can so easily survive without them.

Re: We need the wolf

#29

Post by croisillon »

anonytrary wrote: post #16

I started reading this article, got about four paragraphs in and realized it was really fluffy and extremely long and then stopped. Concision is extremely undervalued. If anyone was braver than I and has a TLDR, I and other readers would love to hear it.

By 1700, wolves had long been extirpated from the current UK, though their old territory is commemorated in the toponyms. In Europe, those that survived retreated to rare enclaves and mountains.

But with the modernization of farming and urbanization, marginal land too steep or too depleted to be worth the effort falls into disuse, bringing back step by step wild vegetation, small animals and bigger carnivores. There are an estimated 12,000 wolves in Europe now, far more than in the US. As shown at the Yellowstone national park, the reintroduction of wolves has influenced the behaviour of their preys, not daring to graze everywhere anymore, hence allowing wilder vegetation.

Scotland could start bringing back wolves too in order to manage naturally the deer population. But this plan meets resistance from shepherds who can't efficiently protect their herd. There is no serious consideration of releasing wolves into the UK countryside.

Re: We need the wolf

#30

Post by onikolas7 »

vixen99 wrote: post #23
eru wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If tomorrow we find proof that dolphins make conscious decisions, will they cease to be nature? I suspect whether to draw the line to make 'nature' include or exclude humans is very similar to whether to include or exclude the observer in quantum mechanics. Both perspectives are entirely reasonable, but they are useful in different circumstances.

Tomorrow? Of course animals make conscious decisions. This orangutan had, prior to implemention, made a conscious decision to build a hammock by tying a sheet to the cage bars. https://roaring.earth/orangutan-builds-a-hammock/

The orangutan's ability to build a hammock does not change its responsibility towards its environment (as its ability to alter it is still very low). However, my ability to start a fire does come with significant responsibility.
Post reply on HN