3 ms·

We really need to be careful with dismissals such as yours. Compared to the time the grandfather post took to research, process, and write compared to how long

by ianai 6y ago

We really need to be careful with dismissals such as yours. Compared to the time the grandfather post took to research, process, and write compared to how long it takes you to write a discarding message is trivial but the potential damage is great. Joe Rogan had a great interview with Barbara Freese yesterday on her forthcoming book “industrial strength denial(...)”. She discussed it at length in her interview. Basically, there are centuries of instances of interested parties using rhetoric not dissimilar to yours to deny progress on emancipation of slaves, tobacco laws, coal regulations, radon effects and etc. Its time we all dismiss the trivial dismissals of hard fought/researched truths and force informed, rational discussion. Link to interview mentioned: https://youtu.be/cP0D2_jhqPU https://youtu.be/cP0D2_jhqPU

ars 6y ago
That post suffers from recentisim. Mass animal die off are not actually new. Unless you find data from at least 100 years ago to compare, you can not draw conclusions. > Compared to the time the grandfather post took to research, process, and write Yes, but the only data in the post is what is found online. So while that can be used to draw attention to an issue, you can not use it to describe a trend, or say that things are getting worse.
- ricardobeat 6y ago
  Maybe you'll trust this 2015 article by National Geographic instead, backed by studies spanning the past 70+ years: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/1/150113-mass-die-off-disease-animals-environment-science/#:~:text=Mass%20die%2Doffs%20are%20individual,offs%20are%20on%20the%20rise https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/1/150113-mass-d....
  - dmix 6y ago
    The study https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/08/1414894112 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/08/1414894112 The scale is increasing for certain species but not all: > We show that the magnitude of MMEs has been intensifying for birds, fishes, and marine invertebrates; invariant for mammals; and decreasing for reptiles and amphibians. The causes are still largely unknown but there are some patterns: > Regardless, the increase in MMEs appears to be associated with a rise in disease emergence, biotoxicity, and events produced by multiple interacting stressors, yet temporal trends in MME causes varied among taxa and may be associated with increased detectability. Either way it's a worrying sign that environmental factors will always play a role. Even if it is mostly just widespread diseases we previously didn't have the capability to detect, or simply no one was looking (as the abstract mentions about detectability) - additional environmental stresses could amplify what was otherwise pretty normal. In regards to the Elephants in Botswana this wouldn't yet meet their definition of MMEs (90% die off), or a good chunk of the other linked examples provided by OP. Additionally rates for mammals remain unchanged.
chrisco255 6y ago
We need to be careful about the narrative that human beings are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. Let's talk about cancel culture. The PhD Susan Crockford, one of the world's renown experts on polar bears, was fired from her position at the University of Victoria for going against the narrative that polar bear populations are collapsing. The reality is they are thriving: https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockfo... Either we care about truth or everything we're doing is for naught. It is very easy to fool yourself, even if you're an expert on a subject. The scientific method demands skepticism and careful control of variables to determine the cause of something. So, we should debate arguments on merit, and leave it at that. If elephants are dying suddenly in large groups, it's unlikely that climate is the cause. Temperatures change more in a day than they do from year to year. It is highly likely that disease is a culprit if there is no evidence of physical impalement. I'm well aware of the overhunting of elephants, and that's always something to be mindful of, but this does not look to be the case here. Deadly outbreaks will still occur in nature as a natural part of life and there is not always something we can do about it.

by ianai 6y ago

ars 6y ago

That post suffers from recentisim. Mass animal die off are not actually new. Unless you find data from at least 100 years ago to compare, you can not draw conclusions. > Compared to the time the grandfather post took to research, process, and write Yes, but the only data in the post is what is found online. So while that can be used to draw attention to an issue, you can not use it to describe a trend, or say that things are getting worse.

ricardobeat 6y ago
Maybe you'll trust this 2015 article by National Geographic instead, backed by studies spanning the past 70+ years: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/1/150113-mass-die-off-disease-animals-environment-science/#:~:text=Mass%20die%2Doffs%20are%20individual,offs%20are%20on%20the%20rise https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/1/150113-mass-d....
- dmix 6y ago
  The study https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/08/1414894112 https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/01/08/1414894112 The scale is increasing for certain species but not all: > We show that the magnitude of MMEs has been intensifying for birds, fishes, and marine invertebrates; invariant for mammals; and decreasing for reptiles and amphibians. The causes are still largely unknown but there are some patterns: > Regardless, the increase in MMEs appears to be associated with a rise in disease emergence, biotoxicity, and events produced by multiple interacting stressors, yet temporal trends in MME causes varied among taxa and may be associated with increased detectability. Either way it's a worrying sign that environmental factors will always play a role. Even if it is mostly just widespread diseases we previously didn't have the capability to detect, or simply no one was looking (as the abstract mentions about detectability) - additional environmental stresses could amplify what was otherwise pretty normal. In regards to the Elephants in Botswana this wouldn't yet meet their definition of MMEs (90% die off), or a good chunk of the other linked examples provided by OP. Additionally rates for mammals remain unchanged.

chrisco255 6y ago

We need to be careful about the narrative that human beings are responsible for all that is wrong with the world. Let's talk about cancel culture. The PhD Susan Crockford, one of the world's renown experts on polar bears, was fired from her position at the University of Victoria for going against the narrative that polar bear populations are collapsing. The reality is they are thriving: https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/ https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockfo... Either we care about truth or everything we're doing is for naught. It is very easy to fool yourself, even if you're an expert on a subject. The scientific method demands skepticism and careful control of variables to determine the cause of something. So, we should debate arguments on merit, and leave it at that. If elephants are dying suddenly in large groups, it's unlikely that climate is the cause. Temperatures change more in a day than they do from year to year. It is highly likely that disease is a culprit if there is no evidence of physical impalement. I'm well aware of the overhunting of elephants, and that's always something to be mindful of, but this does not look to be the case here. Deadly outbreaks will still occur in nature as a natural part of life and there is not always something we can do about it.