4 ms·

Don't Touch Anything

49 points by paulorlando 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nine_k 8y ago
tl;dr: many animal species were introduced to radically different habitats (rabbits and dogs in Australia, pigs in Americas, etc) and changed the balance there drastically and not to the better.
- szemet 8y ago
  I've just read about a wild nandu population in Germany: https://m.dw.com/en/giant-south-american-birds-cause-chaos-in-northern-germany/a-46760753 https://m.dw.com/en/giant-south-american-birds-cause-chaos-i... Seems like it bothers only the farmers there so far...
- taneq 8y ago
  > ... and not to the better. That just depends on the time scale. Everyone is fine with dingoes ("Australia's native dogs") despite them just being dogs that have been wild here for a few thousand years. If pigs had been introduced in 500BC we'd be campaigning to save them instead of trying to eradicate them.
  - paulorlando 8y ago
    Valid point. The unintended consequences do show differently across time after a new equilibrium is reached.
jimrandomh 8y ago
The message of this article (and the rest of the site) seems to be: Things you do will have unintended consequences; you cannot predict these consequences; they will be bad; therefore you shouldn't do anything. This is a terrible position to take. The unintended bad consequences described, in this post and in the other posts on the site, are all reasonably predictable to anyone knowledgeable who's making a serious effort. And sometimes projects don't have unintended bad consequences, or the unintended bad consequences are worth it, or they would be manageable if only someone bothered to predict them.
- kurthr 8y ago
  To be fair, they were talking about self-orgsnizing exponential growth, but I think that makes your point quite well too. Not many people here are going to lament Moore's law.
- manicdee 8y ago
  Everyone has 20/20 vision in hindsight. Many things that turned out to be disasters looked perfectly reasonable at the time. For example introducing the cane toad to control cane beetle, the larva which it was assumed the toad would dig up and eat despite the toad not having that kind of habit. It is possible that the desire to appear to be doing something overpowered the motivation to actually do something. It is also possible that the people involved simply didn’t realise how incompetent they were to make that decision.
  - paulorlando 8y ago
    Nice summary. I write these posts to better understand how complex the world is. Your statement that "many things that turned out to be disasters looked perfectly reasonable at the time" is why we've found it hard to improve at preventing these disasters. I think that's worthy of study. That's what this project is about. Glad you liked it!
- nkurz 8y ago
  The message of this article (and the rest of the site) seems to be: Things you do will have unintended consequences; you cannot predict these consequences; they will be bad; therefore you shouldn't do anything. I think you might be bringing that interpretation to the site. At least, reading the linked article, I don't find it there explicitly. Maybe you are taking the "Don't Touch Anything" title too literally? The author speaks positively of the attempts to reintroduce beavers to Scotland, and seems cautiously optimistic about the attempts to eradicate the accidentally introduced brown tree snake from Guam. Looking at some of the other articles on the site, I see a message akin to your correction. For example, instead of saying "don't do anything", this article is about how "bounty" programs should be run differently to make them more effective: https://unintendedconsequenc.es/the-cobra-effect-redesigned/ https://unintendedconsequenc.es/the-cobra-effect-redesigned/. His recommendations sound about the same as your criticisms.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
2018 BC: Don’t mess with nature because the gods are capricious and will get offended at your hubris and will punish you. AD 2018: Same except substitute some other term for “gods”. It is manipulating nature that we learn about nature and uncover new things. Ultimately, if it had not been for farming, we would never had landed a human on the moon. Humans are the first earth species who is not limited to earth. Within our lifetimes we could have humans successfully living on another planet. Let us respect the intricacies of nature, but not get intimidated into inaction and passivity. Our human ability to adapt earth to our needs on a scale far above any other species is a feature not a bug.
aaron695 8y ago
Australia has successfully introduced many many animals and plants, hundreds of thousands. For commerce, health and bio warfare. Seems missing from the article....

49 points by paulorlando 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

tl;dr: many animal species were introduced to radically different habitats (rabbits and dogs in Australia, pigs in Americas, etc) and changed the balance there drastically and not to the better.

szemet 8y ago
I've just read about a wild nandu population in Germany: https://m.dw.com/en/giant-south-american-birds-cause-chaos-in-northern-germany/a-46760753 https://m.dw.com/en/giant-south-american-birds-cause-chaos-i... Seems like it bothers only the farmers there so far...
taneq 8y ago
> ... and not to the better. That just depends on the time scale. Everyone is fine with dingoes ("Australia's native dogs") despite them just being dogs that have been wild here for a few thousand years. If pigs had been introduced in 500BC we'd be campaigning to save them instead of trying to eradicate them.
- paulorlando 8y ago
  Valid point. The unintended consequences do show differently across time after a new equilibrium is reached.

jimrandomh 8y ago

The message of this article (and the rest of the site) seems to be: Things you do will have unintended consequences; you cannot predict these consequences; they will be bad; therefore you shouldn't do anything. This is a terrible position to take. The unintended bad consequences described, in this post and in the other posts on the site, are all reasonably predictable to anyone knowledgeable who's making a serious effort. And sometimes projects don't have unintended bad consequences, or the unintended bad consequences are worth it, or they would be manageable if only someone bothered to predict them.

kurthr 8y ago
To be fair, they were talking about self-orgsnizing exponential growth, but I think that makes your point quite well too. Not many people here are going to lament Moore's law.
manicdee 8y ago
Everyone has 20/20 vision in hindsight. Many things that turned out to be disasters looked perfectly reasonable at the time. For example introducing the cane toad to control cane beetle, the larva which it was assumed the toad would dig up and eat despite the toad not having that kind of habit. It is possible that the desire to appear to be doing something overpowered the motivation to actually do something. It is also possible that the people involved simply didn’t realise how incompetent they were to make that decision.
- paulorlando 8y ago
  Nice summary. I write these posts to better understand how complex the world is. Your statement that "many things that turned out to be disasters looked perfectly reasonable at the time" is why we've found it hard to improve at preventing these disasters. I think that's worthy of study. That's what this project is about. Glad you liked it!
nkurz 8y ago
The message of this article (and the rest of the site) seems to be: Things you do will have unintended consequences; you cannot predict these consequences; they will be bad; therefore you shouldn't do anything. I think you might be bringing that interpretation to the site. At least, reading the linked article, I don't find it there explicitly. Maybe you are taking the "Don't Touch Anything" title too literally? The author speaks positively of the attempts to reintroduce beavers to Scotland, and seems cautiously optimistic about the attempts to eradicate the accidentally introduced brown tree snake from Guam. Looking at some of the other articles on the site, I see a message akin to your correction. For example, instead of saying "don't do anything", this article is about how "bounty" programs should be run differently to make them more effective: https://unintendedconsequenc.es/the-cobra-effect-redesigned/ https://unintendedconsequenc.es/the-cobra-effect-redesigned/. His recommendations sound about the same as your criticisms.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago

2018 BC: Don’t mess with nature because the gods are capricious and will get offended at your hubris and will punish you. AD 2018: Same except substitute some other term for “gods”. It is manipulating nature that we learn about nature and uncover new things. Ultimately, if it had not been for farming, we would never had landed a human on the moon. Humans are the first earth species who is not limited to earth. Within our lifetimes we could have humans successfully living on another planet. Let us respect the intricacies of nature, but not get intimidated into inaction and passivity. Our human ability to adapt earth to our needs on a scale far above any other species is a feature not a bug.

aaron695 8y ago

Australia has successfully introduced many many animals and plants, hundreds of thousands. For commerce, health and bio warfare. Seems missing from the article....