5 ms·

Indeed I would have to apply the same thinking to wildlife. I think humankind needs to set some boundaries about altering the fabric of nature at all, until we

Indeed I would have to apply the same thinking to wildlife. I think humankind needs to set some boundaries about altering the fabric of nature at all, until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
> until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics Humankind has neither the coordination nor the process to reach a consensus on almost anything, and certainly not on the ethics of changes to the natural world. And meanwhile, we continuously make such changes, whether intentionally, unintentionally, or on the boundary between the two that is "we're doing this and we know we're doing it but we lack the coordination to stop". We should be able to make decisions on a scale of "should we eliminate all mosquitos in the world, would that be a net win or a net loss when taking all side effects into account". I expect that would in fact be a net win, even taking all side effects into account, because disease as a factor will outweigh other considerations. But in practice, I don't think we have the means of making such decisions in any coordinated fashion. And I don't think that means we should refuse to ever make such decisions at all. I think the proposal in the article is a risky one. The rewards may outweigh the risks. But right now we have no process to evaluate that. Writing articles and provoking public opinion is not a process, it's one small step in an otherwise non-existent process.
fsh 5y ago
That ship has sailed roughly 12000 years ago [1]. By mass, around 96% of mammals are either humans or lifestock [2]. If you go on google earth and zoom into a random country anywhere on earth, chances are pretty good that you end up looking at a field. Our immune system is that of a hunter-gatherer. It hasn't evolved to handle close contact with animals, cities, and intercontinental travel. The result are the huge zoonotic pandemics of the last few millennia. Since there is nothing "natural" about them, maybe we have to mess with the fabric of nature in order to avoid the next one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115

JoshTriplett 5y ago

> until we are very certain of the implications and reach a consensus on the ethics Humankind has neither the coordination nor the process to reach a consensus on almost anything, and certainly not on the ethics of changes to the natural world. And meanwhile, we continuously make such changes, whether intentionally, unintentionally, or on the boundary between the two that is "we're doing this and we know we're doing it but we lack the coordination to stop". We should be able to make decisions on a scale of "should we eliminate all mosquitos in the world, would that be a net win or a net loss when taking all side effects into account". I expect that would in fact be a net win, even taking all side effects into account, because disease as a factor will outweigh other considerations. But in practice, I don't think we have the means of making such decisions in any coordinated fashion. And I don't think that means we should refuse to ever make such decisions at all. I think the proposal in the article is a risky one. The rewards may outweigh the risks. But right now we have no process to evaluate that. Writing articles and provoking public opinion is not a process, it's one small step in an otherwise non-existent process.

fsh 5y ago

That ship has sailed roughly 12000 years ago [1]. By mass, around 96% of mammals are either humans or lifestock [2]. If you go on google earth and zoom into a random country anywhere on earth, chances are pretty good that you end up looking at a field. Our immune system is that of a hunter-gatherer. It hasn't evolved to handle close contact with animals, cities, and intercontinental travel. The result are the huge zoonotic pandemics of the last few millennia. Since there is nothing "natural" about them, maybe we have to mess with the fabric of nature in order to avoid the next one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1711842115