3 ms·

Maybe it will actually help, but self-righteousness of the proponents of such methods never ceases to amaze me. It actually makes the plots of all these stupid

by krick 9y ago

Maybe it will actually help, but self-righteousness of the proponents of such methods never ceases to amaze me. It actually makes the plots of all these stupid sci-fi movies seem somewhat plausible. You know, the movies where some technocratic forces (usually military or research group) always do something so obviously stupid, that it just couldn't happen in real life, with security protocols and all. You know what happens next. It's borderline hilarious and terrifying. I mean, first you (well, your grand-grand-…-grandfathers) introduce new species to the land. They are absolutely harmless, you have plenty of them at home and would like to have even more. What can go wrong? When you learn the answer, you try to fix your fuck up while your parents don't see and introduce some more new species that apparently fought off these first species back at home. After all, you are smarter now, you know biology and stuff, you know how one animals eat the others and can play with this stuff knowingly. Well, this does the trick, your first little fuck up gets eliminated, but now that second animal dominates the whole new continent and overall situation got just much worse. You try this several times and it gets trickier every time, but you are so sure of yourself, so educated and smart that you just cannot let go, you are sure you can fix it this time. So you artificially construct a virus to wipe off the harmful population. It seems to help at first, but soon they get immune to that virus and really good at spreading this virus around. Then the virus mutates. Scrolling forward, there's no single kangaroo left alive on the continent, rabbits now can produce nuclear weapons and you still have a new, final solution that surely will fix the situation this time. Like artificial kangaroo immune to radioactivity or something, idk…

eesmith 9y ago
While entertaining, your description doesn't come close to matching what's going on in New Zealand. Rabbits were first brought to NZ in the early 1800s. They caused problems by the 1870s. http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-DruExot-t1-body1-d9.html http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-DruExot-t1-body... . In 1947 the Rabbit Destruction Council was formed. So this isn't a "when you learn the answer" but when your g'g'grandparents learned the answer. It does not appear that any animals were introduced to NZ in order to kill the rabbits. Perhaps I'm wrong? Ferrets can be used to hunt rabbits, but from what I gather they are not effective as a population control method. The RHDV1 K5 virus is not artificially constructed. "It is a naturally occurring variant of RHDV1, originally found in a rabbit breeding farm in Korea." - https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fungi/animals/vertebrate-pests/biological-control-of-rabbits/faq https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fu... . More likely, you are thinking of Australia, since NZ isn't usually considered a continent and since it doesn't have kangaroos.
- krick 9y ago
  You think too much about details. It wasn't supposed to be taken literally, I'm not talking about NZ in particular, yes, Australia's case was taken for inspiration, and, yes, I'm aware of RHDV1-K5 not being artificial per se. It actually feels weird to explain that and, no offense, but I think the fact you are taking it so literally is actually the essence of what I'm trying to say here. The details don't change the general fact we have a history of fucking things up, because "we know science" and "have verified all the details". And the silliness of all the mistakes of the kind I'm talking about here is essentially the same — while fully admitting we don't know all the details, some people are too eager to ignore that and to feel self-righteous on the basis of checking all the known details and not seeing a problem. This isn't about RHDV1-K5 — if I had some serious educated concerns about it, I wouldn't voice them over here (at least not only here). Maybe there won't be any problems this time, I don't know and I surely hope so. But we have a solid track of proving otherwise and, I'm sure of that, we are not done with making mistakes yet.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    It's odd to read that I think too much about details, then read you complain that people don't think enough about all the details of what might go wrong. Abstractly, what you say makes sense. It's been the heart of much of the opposition to ecosystem intervention for decades. But when it gets down to the details, the question is, when should we try to intervene? Your comments appears to be "never, because we don't know the consequences." Which is fine. There may be good reasons against it. But if you justify it with a story line better suited to a science fiction movie then how much weight should we place in your opposition? Or, going the other direction, what sort of response would you want which would make you feel more comfortable about the plan to use RHDV1-K5?
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  Ferrets stoats, and weasels were introduced to hunt rabbits in New Zealand. The only problem though was that they found it a lot easier to go after native birds and largely ignored rabbits as a consequence. I did see a weasel chasing after a rabbit once though. They apparently considered introducing mountain lions to keep deer and goat numbers down in the 40's. Thank the gods someone stopped and though about how much of a bad idea that would be.

by krick 9y ago

eesmith 9y ago

While entertaining, your description doesn't come close to matching what's going on in New Zealand. Rabbits were first brought to NZ in the early 1800s. They caused problems by the 1870s. http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-DruExot-t1-body1-d9.html http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-DruExot-t1-body... . In 1947 the Rabbit Destruction Council was formed. So this isn't a "when you learn the answer" but when your g'g'grandparents learned the answer. It does not appear that any animals were introduced to NZ in order to kill the rabbits. Perhaps I'm wrong? Ferrets can be used to hunt rabbits, but from what I gather they are not effective as a population control method. The RHDV1 K5 virus is not artificially constructed. "It is a naturally occurring variant of RHDV1, originally found in a rabbit breeding farm in Korea." - https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fungi/animals/vertebrate-pests/biological-control-of-rabbits/faq https://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/plants-animals-fu... . More likely, you are thinking of Australia, since NZ isn't usually considered a continent and since it doesn't have kangaroos.

krick 9y ago
You think too much about details. It wasn't supposed to be taken literally, I'm not talking about NZ in particular, yes, Australia's case was taken for inspiration, and, yes, I'm aware of RHDV1-K5 not being artificial per se. It actually feels weird to explain that and, no offense, but I think the fact you are taking it so literally is actually the essence of what I'm trying to say here. The details don't change the general fact we have a history of fucking things up, because "we know science" and "have verified all the details". And the silliness of all the mistakes of the kind I'm talking about here is essentially the same — while fully admitting we don't know all the details, some people are too eager to ignore that and to feel self-righteous on the basis of checking all the known details and not seeing a problem. This isn't about RHDV1-K5 — if I had some serious educated concerns about it, I wouldn't voice them over here (at least not only here). Maybe there won't be any problems this time, I don't know and I surely hope so. But we have a solid track of proving otherwise and, I'm sure of that, we are not done with making mistakes yet.
- eesmith 9y ago
  It's odd to read that I think too much about details, then read you complain that people don't think enough about all the details of what might go wrong. Abstractly, what you say makes sense. It's been the heart of much of the opposition to ecosystem intervention for decades. But when it gets down to the details, the question is, when should we try to intervene? Your comments appears to be "never, because we don't know the consequences." Which is fine. There may be good reasons against it. But if you justify it with a story line better suited to a science fiction movie then how much weight should we place in your opposition? Or, going the other direction, what sort of response would you want which would make you feel more comfortable about the plan to use RHDV1-K5?
toomanybeersies 9y ago
Ferrets stoats, and weasels were introduced to hunt rabbits in New Zealand. The only problem though was that they found it a lot easier to go after native birds and largely ignored rabbits as a consequence. I did see a weasel chasing after a rabbit once though. They apparently considered introducing mountain lions to keep deer and goat numbers down in the 40's. Thank the gods someone stopped and though about how much of a bad idea that would be.