7 ms·

FTFA: For context, they're only about 15 million years younger than the dinosaurs, and some 35 million years older than the oldest great apes. When they first a

FTFA: For context, they're only about 15 million years younger than the dinosaurs, and some 35 million years older than the oldest great apes. When they first arose, Australia was still connected to Antarctica, and the Himalayas didn't even exist yet. They've changed very little over the past 49 million years. What I find disturbing is that because we know so little about them, they merit the lowest categorization on the threat scale, least concern. Again FTFA, their habitat is under threat from deforestation and development... scientists have never seen the animal alive in the wild, they're not entirely sure where they live, or how many of them there are left. I would have hoped there would be a category that basically means "stop what you're doing, we're in danger of wiping this thing out in our ignorance".

civilian 10y ago
Yeah! I was thinking about how I estimate tasks, and I always add storypoints when there's uncertainty involved.
thaumasiotes 10y ago
> I would have hoped there would be a category that basically means "stop what you're doing, we're in danger of wiping this thing out in our ignorance". That's the precautionary principle. It would absolutely protect every location in the world -- in other words, it is completely unworkable and insane. If you wipe something out that you never knew about in the first place, you've lost... nothing.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  No, you just don't know what you've lost. If you throw away, say, a mint-condition Action Comics #1, you've lost a lot of money even if you go to your grave thinking it was just a dumb cartoon book.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Strictly, that's an opportunity cost and not a loss (of money). It's mostly a valid point though. The opportunity cost associated with unknown species is negligible in expectation. Species, known and unknown, are overwhelmingly worthless.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      If you think that the value of species and biodiversity can only be measured in cash returns, then I'm really not sure what else to say to you.
      - restalis 10y ago
        "If you think that the value of species and biodiversity can only be measured in cash returns, then I'm really not sure what else to say to you." Tell him the zoo would make more money with a more diverse collection of unusual species like this squirrel.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        You can assign value to the warm fuzzy feeling you get from knowing that a species is there. This is most of the value of pandas, for example. Unknown species, by definition, do not have this value, and therefore none of it is lost when they go away.
        TeMPOraL 10y ago
        You have a valid point here, though let's hope that unknown species isn't a key link in some chain in the ecosystem, breaking which could cause an ecological catastrophe in the region.
        throwaway7312 10y ago
        20,000 years ago, an alien race made contact with a tribal chieftan. "We noticed you had a large supply of both petroleum and uranium on this world," the alien race said. "What would you like for them?" "Both are worthless," the chieftan said. "Petroleum is sticky and disgusting. It gets on things and won't come off. Uranium burns anyone who touches it. It is a pox on the world. Feel free to take all of them; we need neither." The alien race thanked the chieftan, and left him a gift of 200 cuts of bush meat. It then promptly removed 100% of Earth's valueless petroleum and uranium. The chieftan lost no sleep over the loss of these valueless things, and was certain his descendants would never miss them either. ---- To consider a unique set of genes assembled over the course of a billion+ years "valueless" shows a great lack of foresight. Each species is a resource of unknown and unstudied adaptations it may take millennia or more to replicate in labs. Our machines now are crude metal things; nature makes the ultimate machines. We're centuries away from catching up, at best. By the time we're ready to benchmark against what nature's already done the work to come up with, it may no longer be there to benchmark against, and we'll waste millions of man hours reinventing species we could formerly have just plucked from the jungle, swamp, sea, or desert. New apex predators like man reshape the environment and cause extinctions; this is inevitable. Your certainty that this is also inconsequential, however, is misplaced.
honkhonkpants 10y ago
I find it odd that this is the reason you would preserve these habitats. Humans have the technological capacity to wipe out all remaining forest habitats within a few decades, and probably will do so unless a wave of enlightenment comes over everybody. Wild animal populations stand at half what they were in 1975 and are headed for zero. Why would humanity stop the destruction for an obscure squirrel?
- restalis 10y ago
  "Why would humanity stop the destruction for an obscure squirrel?" Because we didn't filed it yet for extinct species archive. It's about respecting our bureaucratic procedure, you see?
mathattack 10y ago
I would have hoped there would be a category that basically means "stop what you're doing, we're in danger of wiping this thing out in our ignorance". For better or worse this is this is the case with too many species. I'm not a huge treehugger, but this drives me to despair. [0] Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century. [0] http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/ele...

civilian 10y ago

Yeah! I was thinking about how I estimate tasks, and I always add storypoints when there's uncertainty involved.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

> I would have hoped there would be a category that basically means "stop what you're doing, we're in danger of wiping this thing out in our ignorance". That's the precautionary principle. It would absolutely protect every location in the world -- in other words, it is completely unworkable and insane. If you wipe something out that you never knew about in the first place, you've lost... nothing.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
No, you just don't know what you've lost. If you throw away, say, a mint-condition Action Comics #1, you've lost a lot of money even if you go to your grave thinking it was just a dumb cartoon book.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Strictly, that's an opportunity cost and not a loss (of money). It's mostly a valid point though. The opportunity cost associated with unknown species is negligible in expectation. Species, known and unknown, are overwhelmingly worthless.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    If you think that the value of species and biodiversity can only be measured in cash returns, then I'm really not sure what else to say to you.
    - restalis 10y ago
      "If you think that the value of species and biodiversity can only be measured in cash returns, then I'm really not sure what else to say to you." Tell him the zoo would make more money with a more diverse collection of unusual species like this squirrel.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      You can assign value to the warm fuzzy feeling you get from knowing that a species is there. This is most of the value of pandas, for example. Unknown species, by definition, do not have this value, and therefore none of it is lost when they go away.
      - TeMPOraL 10y ago
        You have a valid point here, though let's hope that unknown species isn't a key link in some chain in the ecosystem, breaking which could cause an ecological catastrophe in the region.
      - throwaway7312 10y ago
        20,000 years ago, an alien race made contact with a tribal chieftan. "We noticed you had a large supply of both petroleum and uranium on this world," the alien race said. "What would you like for them?" "Both are worthless," the chieftan said. "Petroleum is sticky and disgusting. It gets on things and won't come off. Uranium burns anyone who touches it. It is a pox on the world. Feel free to take all of them; we need neither." The alien race thanked the chieftan, and left him a gift of 200 cuts of bush meat. It then promptly removed 100% of Earth's valueless petroleum and uranium. The chieftan lost no sleep over the loss of these valueless things, and was certain his descendants would never miss them either. ---- To consider a unique set of genes assembled over the course of a billion+ years "valueless" shows a great lack of foresight. Each species is a resource of unknown and unstudied adaptations it may take millennia or more to replicate in labs. Our machines now are crude metal things; nature makes the ultimate machines. We're centuries away from catching up, at best. By the time we're ready to benchmark against what nature's already done the work to come up with, it may no longer be there to benchmark against, and we'll waste millions of man hours reinventing species we could formerly have just plucked from the jungle, swamp, sea, or desert. New apex predators like man reshape the environment and cause extinctions; this is inevitable. Your certainty that this is also inconsequential, however, is misplaced.

honkhonkpants 10y ago

I find it odd that this is the reason you would preserve these habitats. Humans have the technological capacity to wipe out all remaining forest habitats within a few decades, and probably will do so unless a wave of enlightenment comes over everybody. Wild animal populations stand at half what they were in 1975 and are headed for zero. Why would humanity stop the destruction for an obscure squirrel?

restalis 10y ago
"Why would humanity stop the destruction for an obscure squirrel?" Because we didn't filed it yet for extinct species archive. It's about respecting our bureaucratic procedure, you see?

mathattack 10y ago

I would have hoped there would be a category that basically means "stop what you're doing, we're in danger of wiping this thing out in our ignorance". For better or worse this is this is the case with too many species. I'm not a huge treehugger, but this drives me to despair. [0] Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century. [0] http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/ http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/ele...