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

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: We need the wolf

#61

Post by mulmen »

rorykoehler wrote: post #56
mulmen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that better than living in harmony with nature? A handful of acres can support a family if properly cared for. Why is living in boxes and pretending the world doesn't exist preferable to coexisting with it? I'm skeptical of anyone who is convinced of anything. Especially that we can do a better job than nature.

We still need our cities to be in harmony with nature. Humans are frighteningly destructive. Everywhere we go gets destroyed be it by industry or careless individual actions. We cannot leave this to individual choice fraught with conflicts of interests and sociopathy.

Sure but skyscraper gardens are not harmony with nature. They’re misguided hubris.

Re: We need the wolf

#62

Post by mulmen »

rorykoehler wrote: post #57
mulmen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's about containment. Now we are everywhere. You fly over Malysia and Indonesia and the whole place is plantations.

We aren’t everywhere though. And the parts you can see and fly over are the parts with people, that’s where we put airports.

When you say we should limit human presence to 50% (of land?) that implies enormous development.

Re: We need the wolf

#63

Post by mulmen »

smcl wrote: post #43
mulmen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah but it seems that the kind of dogs who can scare off or fight off a pack of wolves are quite expensive: " He has 17 of these guard dogs now. They are expensive animals, each one worth far more than a sheep. “Last year, I had to explain to my seven-year-old daughter that I couldn’t get her a Christmas present because I had to buy a new dog. That was heartbreaking.” He doesn’t own his land. At this rate – the extr…

Thanks I should have read the article.

Re: We need the wolf

#64

Post by mulmen »

petre wrote: post #40
mulmen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

But do they change the deer's behavior in beneficial ways like wolves?

Re: We need the wolf

#65

Post by fogihujy »

strogonoff wrote: post #55
fogihujy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Many re-locations were supposedly for the common good, though. The physical part is easy since most people will see cities as cramped nightmare-fuel regardless of who moves there first. The psychosocial part will be a nightmare to handle, though. You won't just be moving people from A to B; you will be erasing countless generations worth of cultural identity, placing people in an unfamiliar environment where thei…

We seem to be mostly on the same page, although I think the biggest barriers arise from mutual distrust and rogue actors. (Re)education, adjustment, integration, the logistics of the move—all would be possible given willing understanding citizens, fair and efficient management of the process, international cooperation, and just a few more technological advancements (which, compared to the rest, starts to look like th…

Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take hundreds of millions of people from their homes, rob them of their cultural identity, and place them in re-education camps. Your belief in humanity's ability to work past our differences is admirable, but unrealistic. For both our sakes I hope you are right, because this isn't the last time someone comes up with ideas like this.

Re: We need the wolf

#66

Post by thinkingemote »

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…

Conservation and biodiversity is about humans manipulating the environment away from a natural equilibrium to something better.

A desert is at equilibrium, if we plant stuff and water it, it's more diverse and ecologically better.

Often conservation requires active maintenance to keep the benefits. Usually this maintenance occured as a side effect of historical human activity (resource extraction, grazing, hunting, fire).

As humans do less interaction with the environment as they progress in cities they make nature less bio diverse paradoxically.

Re: We need the wolf

#67

Post by _y5hn »

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…

For the past 10.000 years we're living in unprecedented stable temperatures compared to millions of years. This zone is the foundation of human civilization rise and fall. Biodiversity will contribute to this stability, or is even the foundation. See latest Netflix documentary by David Attenborough.

Re: We need the wolf

#68

Post by smcl »

mulmen wrote: post #63
smcl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but it seems that the kind of dogs who can scare off or fight off a pack of wolves are quite expensive: " He has 17 of these guard dogs now. They are expensive animals, each one worth far more than a sheep. “Last year, I had to explain to my seven-year-old daughter that I couldn’t get her a Christmas present because I had to buy a new dog. That was heartbreaking.” He doesn’t own his land. At this rate – the extr…

Thanks I should have read the article.

No worries I wasn't implying that. As OP said, it started with quite flowery, verbose text and I totally get that some people don't enjoy reading this

Re: We need the wolf

#69

Post by strogonoff »

fogihujy wrote: post #65
strogonoff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We seem to be mostly on the same page, although I think the biggest barriers arise from mutual distrust and rogue actors. (Re)education, adjustment, integration, the logistics of the move—all would be possible given willing understanding citizens, fair and efficient management of the process, international cooperation, and just a few more technological advancements (which, compared to the rest, starts to look like th…

Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take hundreds of millions of people from their homes, rob them of their cultural identity, and place them in re-education camps. Your belief in humanity's ability to work past our differences is admirable, but unrealistic. For both our sakes I hope you are right, be…

My point though is that people would be willing to leave if those issues were addressed. (I.e., they would agree that saving the planet is beneficial in long term, and all that stops them is insufficient information and distrust.) No need to force anyone.

Re: We need the wolf

#70

Post by fogihujy »

strogonoff wrote: post #69
fogihujy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we are on the same page in regards to the problem statement, but I have no illusion about this being feasible, unless you are suggesting we forcibly take hundreds of millions of people from their homes, rob them of their cultural identity, and place them in re-education camps. Your belief in humanity's ability to work past our differences is admirable, but unrealistic. For both our sakes I hope you are right, be…

My point though is that people would be willing to leave if those issues were addressed. (I.e., they would agree that saving the planet is beneficial in long term, and all that stops them is insufficient information and distrust.) No need to force anyone.

Some people are simply not well-suited for living in a city. I'm one of them, and I know many others like me.

Even if we somehow managed to solve the practical issues, I'd have to spend a lifetime in therapy just to stay sane. I know, I tried. My therapist told me to move back to the countryside again because the pace city life wasn't good for my mental health. :)

Post reply on HN