4 ms·

> Eradicating the disease carriers would have minimal effects on the ecosystems. I'm not going to ask you to prove a negative, but it sure sounds like it's goi

by awb 6y ago

> Eradicating the disease carriers would have minimal effects on the ecosystems. I'm not going to ask you to prove a negative, but it sure sounds like it's going against all the advice I've heard about ecology. Namely that ecosystems are far more complex than we understand and that even small changes can compound into larger changes. Basically: don't play God. If this is safe and it does work, then it might be helpful to have some new messaging about when and where we can start actively designing ecosystems. "Don't mess with mother nature" is easy to understand. So, how would you create a new maxim that preserve that general rules but also accommodates eliminating undesirable subspecies?

germinalphrase 6y ago
“How would you create a new maxim that preserves that general rule but also accommodates eliminating undesirable subspecies?” “We are as gods and might as well get good at it,” Stewart Brand.
jjk166 6y ago
It's not like we're snapping our fingers and making an irreversible change to the whole planet. We can and have been testing this process in isolated cases and if anything unexpected happens we can stop the process and reintroduce the species, but we actually do have a pretty good understanding of ecosystems. Mother nature does not have your best interests at heart, and decisions that affect the lives of millions should not be made based off short maxims.
- coding123 6y ago
  Famous last words.
- awb 6y ago
  > We can and have been testing this process in isolated cases Anytime you jump from the lab to the real world it's going to be different. And each ecosystem in the country and state will be slightly different. > if anything unexpected happens we can stop the process and reintroduce the species Has this been done before with insects though? This sounds a lot harder than reintroducing wolves at Yellowstone that are small enough in number that they can be monitored.
hackeraccount 6y ago
"Don't mess with markets" is easy to understand. That said people are perfectly willing to mess with them in ways both large and small. Sometimes they have a guiding maxim and sometimes they just say it's a self-evident action that will outweigh any downside. I suspect the truth is that in both cases it comes down to who is going to benefit - with it more likely to happen if the "who" is either a large number or a small number with a lot of influence and the "benefit" is something that's immediately apparent to the winners and not immediately apparent to the people who lose in the intervention.
joe-collins 6y ago
> Basically: don't play God. (Un)fortunately, we already are God. We already mess with Mother Nature. Our continued existence has impacts so complex that those impacts cannot be modulated solely in degree, because changing degree causes a cascade of effects that makes it a change in type. It is unpredictable, not because it is natural, not because it is sacred or some other special case, but because of the number of parts. And in spite of that lack of clarity, we are inescapably responsible for making choices that will steer the ecosystem. As Sartre wrote, > In one sense choice is possible, but what is not possible is not to choose. I can always choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice. There is no surety that non-intervention will lead to outcomes that are better by any measure, whether that measure is long-term stability, convenience for humans, or nearly any other you might choose. Left alone, nature can only select the traits that made the last generation breed the most. None of that is proof against the future. For every species alive today, many others are dead, exactly because nature was not messed with. Nature does not share humanity's moral attachment to conservationism.
diebeforei485 6y ago
We introduced invasive species like tumbleweeds (unknowlingly) that have messed with mother nature. We have also introduced some species that haven't really created problems. We have also created new habitats (cities) where some species are quite problematic. If we could get rid of cockroaches and bed-bugs, life would certainly become better.

by awb 6y ago

germinalphrase 6y ago

“How would you create a new maxim that preserves that general rule but also accommodates eliminating undesirable subspecies?” “We are as gods and might as well get good at it,” Stewart Brand.

jjk166 6y ago

It's not like we're snapping our fingers and making an irreversible change to the whole planet. We can and have been testing this process in isolated cases and if anything unexpected happens we can stop the process and reintroduce the species, but we actually do have a pretty good understanding of ecosystems. Mother nature does not have your best interests at heart, and decisions that affect the lives of millions should not be made based off short maxims.

coding123 6y ago
Famous last words.
awb 6y ago
> We can and have been testing this process in isolated cases Anytime you jump from the lab to the real world it's going to be different. And each ecosystem in the country and state will be slightly different. > if anything unexpected happens we can stop the process and reintroduce the species Has this been done before with insects though? This sounds a lot harder than reintroducing wolves at Yellowstone that are small enough in number that they can be monitored.

hackeraccount 6y ago

"Don't mess with markets" is easy to understand. That said people are perfectly willing to mess with them in ways both large and small. Sometimes they have a guiding maxim and sometimes they just say it's a self-evident action that will outweigh any downside. I suspect the truth is that in both cases it comes down to who is going to benefit - with it more likely to happen if the "who" is either a large number or a small number with a lot of influence and the "benefit" is something that's immediately apparent to the winners and not immediately apparent to the people who lose in the intervention.

joe-collins 6y ago

> Basically: don't play God. (Un)fortunately, we already are God. We already mess with Mother Nature. Our continued existence has impacts so complex that those impacts cannot be modulated solely in degree, because changing degree causes a cascade of effects that makes it a change in type. It is unpredictable, not because it is natural, not because it is sacred or some other special case, but because of the number of parts. And in spite of that lack of clarity, we are inescapably responsible for making choices that will steer the ecosystem. As Sartre wrote, > In one sense choice is possible, but what is not possible is not to choose. I can always choose, but I must know that if I do not choose, that is still a choice. There is no surety that non-intervention will lead to outcomes that are better by any measure, whether that measure is long-term stability, convenience for humans, or nearly any other you might choose. Left alone, nature can only select the traits that made the last generation breed the most. None of that is proof against the future. For every species alive today, many others are dead, exactly because nature was not messed with. Nature does not share humanity's moral attachment to conservationism.

diebeforei485 6y ago

We introduced invasive species like tumbleweeds (unknowlingly) that have messed with mother nature. We have also introduced some species that haven't really created problems. We have also created new habitats (cities) where some species are quite problematic. If we could get rid of cockroaches and bed-bugs, life would certainly become better.