4 ms·

Some comments are mentioning the utility but I'd like to offer another opinion: until humanity actually makes decisions based on what's best for the stability o

Some comments are mentioning the utility but I'd like to offer another opinion: until humanity actually makes decisions based on what's best for the stability of the planet rather than short term gains I'm not sure we should be trusted with such a power. There are so many helpful things we could do for our planet which aren't even truly disruptive to our economies which we neglect to do for either inertia sake or the profit of existing archaic industries... Take for example ditching most of our usage of fossil fuels, we have nuclear and other technologies but it would be greatly destabilizing to economies dependent on selling oil. Considering the environmental catastrophe we already face and will face from global warming it's no brainer! What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways. Check out sales in Alaska and Canada. In short, what would this be used for? I imagine what ever seems entertaining and marketable which will just get us further from saving ourselves and the planet...

bakatubas 5y ago
> In short, what would this be used for? A stepping stone to inventing new species, or augmenting humans with super-human powers… duh!
imoverclocked 5y ago
... or perhaps do something about Climate Change? The problem is that we don't get to make choices as a world or even as a species about what is overall best. As a race, we often devolve to individuals doing what seems best at the moment... much like the last of a pair of birds being brought together to mate.
tyingq 5y ago
>what ever seems entertaining and marketable Sadly, I think you're right. My first thought was that it would turn into exotic designer dogs and cats.
jdavis703 5y ago
> What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways. The price of lumber (i.e. a manufactured product) saw increased prices. The price for the “raw” logs has remained relatively stable. Lastly have there been any serious plans to rollback forestry protections since the change of administration?
quesera 5y ago
Intelligent and capable people work on problems that are interesting to them. Anything else is forced labor.
- marricks 5y ago
  Not sure what your point is, many of the most intelligent and capable people in the western world are working at Google and Facebook designing the best algorithms to make people click on ads. I imagine it's not because it's the most interesting but because market demands force them into it. Far less resources are put towards solving the climate crisis...
  - quesera 5y ago
    Clearly that is the choice that most interests them. And some people choose global ecological health instead. There are lots of people. Your complaint seems to amount to "no one should work on their own projects until the world is solved", which is not viable -- though it has been tried in the past, with great negative effects. (Also, an aside: I think this criticism of G & FB is overwrought (and I'm 100% G&FB-free, personally). We see this snark get thrown around a lot, but almost no one in either corp works on the insidiousness++ version of ad targeting. The best&brightest at each definitely do not. They all profit from it of course, but the same can be said for all employees of large corps, to varying degrees.)
    - marricks 5y ago
      > Clearly that is the choice that most interests them. I think our discussion won’t be productive as you don’t want to consider what conditions the market plays in forcing people’s choices.
      - quesera 5y ago
        That is my point though. You seem to be arguing for some externally-imposed direction of labor. That will fail. If you are instead arguing that leaders should lead, and governments should invest in the future of their people, then that message is not coming through. The biologists working on reviving extinct species are not the workers building solar plants.
gorpy7 5y ago
This comment is a bit pithy for the reasons already mentioned and more. Humanity has never acted as one thing. There is no order to the activities required to turn things around for the world. Reintroducing a keystone species can draw more attention to an under appreciated ecosystem a la polar bear. conversely, it could make light of saving a species if we can simply reanimate it down the road. But again, there is room for all sorts of efforts. i doubt more tools and more species would be an overall detriment. i would love to see an ecosystem rev to full glory.
- cwkoss 5y ago
  Guerilla biohackers releasing extinct keystone species into their original habitats would be a pretty dank cyberpunk future.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    … just so they can go extinct again?
  - pvaldes 5y ago
    past and present in fact, is happening yet and is a really bad idea. Some things must not be left to script kiddies.
  - bjelkeman-again 5y ago
    This is sort of happening in the U.K. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/13/maverick-rewilders-endangered-species-extinction-conservation-uk-wildlife https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/13/maverick...
  - soco 5y ago
    Except their natural habitats are disappearing quickly so guerilla biohackers better hurry up or they're gonna be left sitting with moas in their basements.
- marricks 5y ago
  Wouldn't argue against it being pithy, and I don't dream we'd all unite to save the planet. What I do dream and hope for is we have less of a united force destroying the planet and a larger disunited force trying to actually save it.
economusty 5y ago
> until humanity actually makes decisions based on what's best for the stability of the planet This is the exact type of hubris that got us in the current downtrending situation. Humans are not capable of making and executing on such decisions.

bakatubas 5y ago

> In short, what would this be used for? A stepping stone to inventing new species, or augmenting humans with super-human powers… duh!

imoverclocked 5y ago

... or perhaps do something about Climate Change? The problem is that we don't get to make choices as a world or even as a species about what is overall best. As a race, we often devolve to individuals doing what seems best at the moment... much like the last of a pair of birds being brought together to mate.

tyingq 5y ago

>what ever seems entertaining and marketable Sadly, I think you're right. My first thought was that it would turn into exotic designer dogs and cats.

jdavis703 5y ago

> What about protecting important old growth forests? They are a bastion of biodiversity and important for sequestering carbon but since the lumbar shortage drove up the price of wood the importance (not to mention the fact a majority of people don't want that lumber cut) we're going ahead anyways. The price of lumber (i.e. a manufactured product) saw increased prices. The price for the “raw” logs has remained relatively stable. Lastly have there been any serious plans to rollback forestry protections since the change of administration?

quesera 5y ago

Intelligent and capable people work on problems that are interesting to them. Anything else is forced labor.

marricks 5y ago
Not sure what your point is, many of the most intelligent and capable people in the western world are working at Google and Facebook designing the best algorithms to make people click on ads. I imagine it's not because it's the most interesting but because market demands force them into it. Far less resources are put towards solving the climate crisis...
- quesera 5y ago
  Clearly that is the choice that most interests them. And some people choose global ecological health instead. There are lots of people. Your complaint seems to amount to "no one should work on their own projects until the world is solved", which is not viable -- though it has been tried in the past, with great negative effects. (Also, an aside: I think this criticism of G & FB is overwrought (and I'm 100% G&FB-free, personally). We see this snark get thrown around a lot, but almost no one in either corp works on the insidiousness++ version of ad targeting. The best&brightest at each definitely do not. They all profit from it of course, but the same can be said for all employees of large corps, to varying degrees.)
  - marricks 5y ago
    > Clearly that is the choice that most interests them. I think our discussion won’t be productive as you don’t want to consider what conditions the market plays in forcing people’s choices.
    - quesera 5y ago
      That is my point though. You seem to be arguing for some externally-imposed direction of labor. That will fail. If you are instead arguing that leaders should lead, and governments should invest in the future of their people, then that message is not coming through. The biologists working on reviving extinct species are not the workers building solar plants.

gorpy7 5y ago

This comment is a bit pithy for the reasons already mentioned and more. Humanity has never acted as one thing. There is no order to the activities required to turn things around for the world. Reintroducing a keystone species can draw more attention to an under appreciated ecosystem a la polar bear. conversely, it could make light of saving a species if we can simply reanimate it down the road. But again, there is room for all sorts of efforts. i doubt more tools and more species would be an overall detriment. i would love to see an ecosystem rev to full glory.

cwkoss 5y ago
Guerilla biohackers releasing extinct keystone species into their original habitats would be a pretty dank cyberpunk future.
- falcolas 5y ago
  … just so they can go extinct again?
- pvaldes 5y ago
  past and present in fact, is happening yet and is a really bad idea. Some things must not be left to script kiddies.
- bjelkeman-again 5y ago
  This is sort of happening in the U.K. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/13/maverick-rewilders-endangered-species-extinction-conservation-uk-wildlife https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/13/maverick...
- soco 5y ago
  Except their natural habitats are disappearing quickly so guerilla biohackers better hurry up or they're gonna be left sitting with moas in their basements.
marricks 5y ago
Wouldn't argue against it being pithy, and I don't dream we'd all unite to save the planet. What I do dream and hope for is we have less of a united force destroying the planet and a larger disunited force trying to actually save it.

economusty 5y ago

> until humanity actually makes decisions based on what's best for the stability of the planet This is the exact type of hubris that got us in the current downtrending situation. Humans are not capable of making and executing on such decisions.