3 ms·
What could possibly go wrong? We've done so well engineering complex ecosystems that there's certainly no possibility of unintended consequences. For a great ex
by toddh 16y ago
What could possibly go wrong? We've done so well engineering complex ecosystems that there's certainly no possibility of unintended consequences. For a great example of success take a look at rabbits in Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia) and perch in Lake Victoria (http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/lake_victoria_sick.php http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/lake_victoria_sick.php).
- jerf 16y agoLook at Therac-25, the Ariane 5, and the Mars Surveyor! Therefore we should stop all programming! Argument-by-disaster is a terrible argument, there is not a single human endeavor that has not led to disaster at some point. It proves too much. Reflexively decrying all environmental modification is at best a cognitive shortcut which should be discarded when it doesn't apply, at worst institutionalized stupidity-by-choice. Dismissing some crank on the Internet who offhandedly mumbles something about eliminating mosquitoes with "what could go wrong?" is appropriate. Dismissing a serious article that seriously asks the question and considers the consequences is a disservice to everyone involved in the article. You're getting upvoted because you are giving people a chance to mentally feel good about their environmental bona fides because they upvoted you, not because you're making an even remotely valuable argument or contribution.
- mitjak 16y agoAgreed, but the main point still stands: there can definitely be factors outside of our knowledge and control which we will simply not be aware of until it is too late. The old "life would be so much easier without this little nature's imperfection" attitude has brought some unintended and tragic consequences more than once.
- mtomczak 16y agoThanks to the general availability and utilization of vaccines against smallpox and polio, massive improvements in sanitation and emergency response, and long-term cardiac therapy, the death rate due to cancers is radically up. Cancer is a horrible disesase. Which one of those changes should we not have made to end up in the situation we're in today?
- mitjak 16y agoWhat causes cancer outside of factors brought about by human intervention?
- anamax 16y ago> Agreed, but the main point still stands: there can definitely be factors outside of our knowledge and control which we will simply not be aware of until it is too late. There are always such factors. Take the choice whether to have a child. Said child may be the next Hitler, so clearly it's wrong to have a child. But wait, said child may be the person who stops the next Hitler, so there's almost an obligation to have said child. Pointing out that there are unknowns is useless. More to the point, it isn't an argument for or against anything because it applies just as well to all options.
- jerf 16y agoNo, it doesn't stand. It proves too much. It proves you should never take any action, and for that matter also that "no action" isn't acceptable either. This is not a useful thing to "prove". See also the logically-unsound "precautionary principle", which has the exact same problem for the exact same reason.
- Tichy 16y agoHe only said "what could possibly go wrong", hardly the same as saying "it should never, ever be attempted". It would be interesting to hear some success stories in contrast? I suppose stuff like importing potatoes would count?
- MartinCron 16y agoArgument-by-disaster is terrible when it's shallow and leads people to jump to conclusions too soon. Spectacular success and spectacular failure can both be illustrative in their own way. The only problem I have with Therac-25 is that it's overused, surely we have other catastrophic programming examples?