3 ms·

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 inspirat

by 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?

by krick 9y ago

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?