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

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: We need the wolf

#31

Post by mulmen »

eru wrote: post #10
petre wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Lyme disease is a symptom of the wolf and bear populations getting driven into extinction. Deer populations prosper and tick spread also prospers along with them. Ticks multiply on deer. Mice and small bird populations also prosper. They're reservoir species for Lyme but I fail to see the connection to wolves. Most likely also a smaller predator species like weasel, polecat, stoat, ferret, mink and wild cat…

If one predator like wolves goes away, another predator like ticks picks up the slack. Interestingly, parasites with complex lifecycles are good indicators of biodiversity in general, because they lodge in multiple different hosts across the different levels of the ecosystem.

Are ticks predators? Do they kill deer? Do they keep them away from areas where humans live?

Wolves hunt deer. Deer carry ticks. Ticks threaten humans.

Re: We need the wolf

#32

Post by deodorel »

Artificially supporting and re-introducing wild life has its hazards too. In my country, romania, we have grown a huge bears population, totally disconnected from a natural food chain as you can get. They usually go into cities and villages for food, stopped hibernating because of the availability of food during winter, and keep reproducing. Some have actually moved in abandoned places near cities terrorising locals. The bears are not hunted, with no natural predators and unlimited food...

Re: We need the wolf

#33

Post by mulmen »

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 USPS provides a critical service. While some rural areas may have reached the end of their viable existence the USPS still exists to serve places where the market has not yet offered a solution. It's a critical service to the functioning and growth of a nation of our size.

Re: We need the wolf

#34

Post by Ma8ee »

sebmellen wrote: post #20
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.

Humans certainly are nature. In a very real sense, every part of us is "natural", and we are emergent properties of the natural world. Figs do not grow on thistles.

So what is not natural according to you?

Re: We need the wolf

#35

Post by fogihujy »

rorykoehler wrote: post #19
ur-whale wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but curious to know if you have thought how, practically, you'd enforce something like this?

Urban densification including urban farming in skyscrapers. Desalination would need to go mainstream too. Of course many will be upset they can't live in a pile on 4 acres. I also have little confidence this would be a popular move given the outrageous individualist fundamentalism we've managed to create in society but I am convinced it is essential to avoiding systemic collapse.

And those of us who are living a quiet life on a small plot of land in one of those areas? Forced relocation into a physically and culturally unfamiliar place? "Sorry, you're not a part of the problem, but you live in the same area as those who are. Off you go!"?

There has been attempts at mass re-locations of people before. It usually didn't turn out well.

Re: We need the wolf

#36

Post by [deleted] »

onikolas7 wrote: post #5
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: We need the wolf

#37

Post by mulmen »

croisillon wrote: post #29
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…

Naive question: isn't this why we have dogs? Can't we have packs of dogs that don't kill sheep hang out with the flock and scare off wolves?

Re: We need the wolf

#38

Post by glerk »

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.

When we grow up as a species, we should move entirely to artificial space habitats and let the Earth be a natural reserve.

Re: We need the wolf

#39

Post by mulmen »

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.

This seems to imply we could develop half the world, which seems like a lot more than we have done today. Your description of controlled access sounds like the BLM. 50% is too arbitrary to be compelling, what makes you pick that number?

Re: We need the wolf

#40

Post by petre »

mulmen wrote: post #31
eru wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one predator like wolves goes away, another predator like ticks picks up the slack. Interestingly, parasites with complex lifecycles are good indicators of biodiversity in general, because they lodge in multiple different hosts across the different levels of the ecosystem.

Are ticks predators? Do they kill deer? Do they keep them away from areas where humans live? Wolves hunt deer. Deer carry ticks. Ticks threaten humans .

Yup, ticks do kill deer and moose.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/ticks-ca...

Post reply on HN