3 ms·
Thank you for the reasonable answer. Still, I find no harm in asking "what is it about this species that makes them stand out?" I was expecting to get factual
by babarock 8y ago
Thank you for the reasonable answer.
Still, I find no harm in asking "what is it about this species that makes them stand out?" I was expecting to get factual answers along the lines of "these butterflies are tied to this specific other species and we know that this could snowball into X, Y, Z". I would've liked to hear something like this instead of the other patronizing answers and the accusative tone.
> Asking questions is fine! It's great. It's how we learn. But cavalier comments like the OP are downvoted not because they are asking serious questions, but for stinking of militant ignorance.
I'm getting downvoted just like OP. Am I being cavalier too?
I'm more concerned about our inability to have a discussion without assigning nefarious implicit meaning to questions.
I realize that denying human impact on the environment is a reality in US politics. I'm not from the US. I don't understand much of these things.
If you don't mind me asking, what exactly in OP's question made it stink of militant ignorance? Am I displaying the same ignorance as well? Or am I only expected to perpetuate the outrage and never question anything.
For instance can I ask where this comes from "The extinction rate today is 100 to 1000 times higher than geological norms." or will it sound like I'm denying all human impact on the planet?
- harlanlewis 8y agoRe "100 to 1000 times" - this is at the end of the first paragraph of Wikipedia's Holocene extinction page, with multiple citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
- tejohnso 8y agoI don't know that this specifically includes the 100 to 1000 times figure, but it speaks of "biological annihilation". > This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.full?ftag=MSF0951a18 https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.full?ftag=MSF0951a...
- sosuke 8y agoI had to dig for it but this a study that was referenced in articles mentioning the 100 to 1000 times higher statistics. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752
- moseandre 8y agoMonarchs have a multi-generation migration. That is beautiful and mysterious.
- dmitriid 8y ago> Still, I find no harm in asking "what is it about this species that makes them stand out?" Because it's a symptom of a much larger problem. Namely, collapse of insects in general: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-collapse-we-are-destroying-our-life-support-systems https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/15/insect-c... Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few years, there've been multiple reported rapid declines across multiple species, not just "this species that for some reason stands out". Some species are naturally more studied than others (because of availability, accessibility, observability etc.), and when they collapse, it's can be immediately observed.
- civilitty 8y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species Robert Paine developed the theory when he went to a bunch of tide pools and picked out some of their starfish. What he found was that the ecosystems (isolated tide pools) where he removed all of the starfish rapidly collapsed. It turns out that the starfish were critical to controlling the population of another animal that was preying on herbivores. When the starfish disappeared, its prey grew out of control and ate all the herbivores. This caused seaweed and other plants to grow out of control, exhausting several key resources faster than the ecosystem could naturally replenish them, until the tide pool became a deadzone.