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

When zebra mussels colonized Lake Erie, it began to recover

ecosophia.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: When zebra mussels colonized Lake Erie, it began to recover

#61

Post by marcus_holmes »

empath75 wrote: post #26
marcus_holmes wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, that evolution works by "the survival of the fittest". If an invasive species (that didn't evolve in the environment it's invading) is better-suited to the environment than the native species (who did evolve there, and by rights should be better suited to it), then that's a win for evolution. The fitter species survive, and will then evolve into the niches available. The introduction of mammals to New Zealand i…

> But for the planetary biosphere, it's a win because the mammals are better suited to living there It's not a win in either case. It's just what happened. Evolution and nature and the biosphere don't have goals.

true, good point. I would rephrase it, but I think it's sufficiently clear as is, if we accept that there is no actual "winning" involved here as you point out.

Re: When zebra mussels colonized Lake Erie, it began to recover

#62

Post by marcus_holmes »

ordu wrote: post #41
mrfusion wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You raise a good point too. if there are no wins or losses in nature maybe it comes down to promoting species we enjoy most?

How about maximizing diversity? Because it is more fun for people and because it increases fitness of the biosphere as an ultimate ecosystem? As for me it sounds better. Yes, local people could be annoyed by lions or venomous snakes, but for the most humans lions and snakes are just a curiosity that makes world more interesting.

but I think this was the point of the article.

Losing highly-adapted, very fragile species to a more robust invader is a loss of biodiversity. But that holds biodiversity as a higher virtue than survivability and adaptability. Is that justified?

This is the thing: if species A out-performs species B in a given ecosystem niche, and species B becomes extinct as a result, that's how nature works. That's evolution. There's nothing "wrong" or "bad" about that. Survival of the fittest.

If humans caused species A to be there, that's irrelevant. It doesn't make Species A's survival (or species B's extinction) "unnatural" or "wrong". We were just a transport mechanism, like any other "natural" transport mechanism.

Surely evolution and survival of the fittest overrules biodiversity?

Re: When zebra mussels colonized Lake Erie, it began to recover

#63

Post by pygy_ »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #59
pygy_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We humans benefit from a stable environment. In stable-ish conditions, ecosystems evolve towards stable configurations where the sun's energy can be optimally tapped. Those disruptions bring unstability (boom-bust cycles of high amplitude) and thus danger for us.

Who says we benefit from a stable environment? As TFA says, we're highly adaptable omnivore generalists. We thrive on change, adapt to it quickly. We live in every single land-based biome in the world (and may be the only large life form to do so). Wishing for everything to be stable in a chaotic system like the Earth is futile. Instead, we have evolved to be antifragile and thrive on constant change.

It's a matter of degree. The rate of change is growing with our ecologic footprint.

Changing mentalities takes generations (think "Science progresses one funeral at a time") and we may not adapt fast enough this time. What more, those in power, who are reluctant to change, endanger those that would readily change but don't have the power to even though they'll likely pay the price.

Re: When zebra mussels colonized Lake Erie, it began to recover

#64

Post by marcus_holmes »

pygy_ wrote: post #63
marcus_holmes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says we benefit from a stable environment? As TFA says, we're highly adaptable omnivore generalists. We thrive on change, adapt to it quickly. We live in every single land-based biome in the world (and may be the only large life form to do so). Wishing for everything to be stable in a chaotic system like the Earth is futile. Instead, we have evolved to be antifragile and thrive on constant change.

It's a matter of degree. The rate of change is growing with our ecologic footprint. Changing mentalities takes generations (think "Science progresses one funeral at a time") and we may not adapt fast enough this time. What more, those in power, who are reluctant to change, endanger those that would readily change but don't have the power to even though they'll likely pay the price.

I never understood why there's this assumption that change is only adaptable if it happens slowly. I'm not sure what evidence supports this?

We've seen a lot of change happen over the last few decades (though possibly not in academia, as you say). It's been tough for some, but for most of us it's been great. The world is undeniably a better place now than it was 50 years ago, despite those 50 years being full of incredibly fast changes.

Re: When zebra mussels colonized Lake Erie, it began to recover

#65

Post by pygy_ »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #64
pygy_ wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a matter of degree. The rate of change is growing with our ecologic footprint. Changing mentalities takes generations (think "Science progresses one funeral at a time") and we may not adapt fast enough this time. What more, those in power, who are reluctant to change, endanger those that would readily change but don't have the power to even though they'll likely pay the price.

I never understood why there's this assumption that change is only adaptable if it happens slowly. I'm not sure what evidence supports this? We've seen a lot of change happen over the last few decades (though possibly not in academia, as you say). It's been tough for some, but for most of us it's been great. The world is undeniably a better place now than it was 50 years ago, despite those 50 years being full of incr…

The current extinction event would seem like a tremendous amount of evidence that many species have a hard limit on how fast they can adapt.

On a smaller scale there are many people that died in fire they themselves had started.

Culture (information stored in the brain) changes faster than DNA, but its ability to change is still limited, especially in older folks.

In order to survive, we need our environmental conditions to remain in a reasonable range (temperature, atmospheric composition, weather). According to some predictions, some parts of the world around the equator will be to hot for people to live at the turn of the 22th century. The ocean (50 to 80% of the photosynthesis) is already in a sorry state and we keep on pushing.

So far, so good... https://soundcloud.com/user-876103472/grow

    The earth is like an Apple pie,
    let's eat it and let's eat it and let's die!
    Do you want some more? It's ...hmm... delicious!
To take on another of your initial points regarding the fitness of invasive species. Being too aggressive is not necessarily being fitter. A specie (not necessarily human) that's too dominant can crash the ecosystem that sustains it and cause it to collapse, bringing its own demise.

Re: When zebra mussels colonized Lake Erie, it began to recover

#66

Post by pygy_ »

pygy_ wrote: post #65
marcus_holmes wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood why there's this assumption that change is only adaptable if it happens slowly. I'm not sure what evidence supports this? We've seen a lot of change happen over the last few decades (though possibly not in academia, as you say). It's been tough for some, but for most of us it's been great. The world is undeniably a better place now than it was 50 years ago, despite those 50 years being full of incr…

The current extinction event would seem like a tremendous amount of evidence that many species have a hard limit on how fast they can adapt. On a smaller scale there are many people that died in fire they themselves had started. Culture (information stored in the brain) changes faster than DNA, but its ability to change is still limited, especially in older folks. In order to survive, we need our environmental condit…

Another way to frame it: you seem to believe that we can adapt arbitrarily at an arbitrarily fast rate.

There is however inertia both in infrastructure building and in changing mentalities that means it isn't the case.

I'm not sure we'll adapt fast enough to the current challenges (assuming it's not already too late for a large scale disaster). The future will tell who was right.

Re: When zebra mussels colonized Lake Erie, it began to recover

#67

Post by ctrlaltdylan »

giardini wrote: post #55
ctrlaltdylan wrote: post #18

I was hoping this article would go more into the detail of other invasive species in the Lakes like Asian Carp and those nasty looking parasitic Laprey's.

ctrlaltdyaln says>"like Asian Carp..." Mmmmm! Good eating: "Eat The Enemy: The Delicious Solution To Menacing Asian Carp" https://www.huffpost.com/entry/eat-the-enemy-asian-carp_n_63...

I didn't know you could eat them! I'll have to try out this recipe thanks!
Post reply on HN