3 ms·

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more c

> otherwise we'll lose them So what? What value are these species? What are they for? I'm sure we'll be able to advance medicine in other ways. I'm much more concerned about the longevity of our civilization than the other organics we happen to have coevolved with. If we have to pave over the whole planet then so be it. Organic life is common and therefore expendable. If we all die off, new life will almost certainly evolve, but a new civilization? That's much less certain.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago
What the hell, man.
davzie 4y ago
This HAS to be trolling!
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Believe it or not, I'm actually looking for a good faith refutation that doesn't rely on sentiment.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Value is sentiment; you cannot refute a value statement without relying on it.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      Value is more than one thing, arguably. You kind of have to go back to first philosophical principles to unpick this. Which I guess is my point - if one's goal is the expansion and longevity of human civilization (which I think is reasonable) then it's not clear at all where the rest of organic life (which we compete with) fits into this picture. If the best reason to preserve it is "it's pretty to look at" and "maybe we'll get some medical advances" then let's just admit that. I'm only suggesting that this is something about which reasonable people can (and have) disagree.
      - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
        > the rest of organic life (which we compete with) Here is the issue: it is more than mere competition. We co-exist in a delicate balance with the rest of life, or at least we used to. Now we threaten to destroy them, and the planet on which we depend, exactly because of this implicit belief that we compete with them instead of relying on them.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        I think we need to engineer this balance. The ones we need we keep; the ones we don't, we don't. This is basically bioforming.
        chordalkeyboard 4y ago
        I agree, and we should probably understand it before we change it. It was already engineered by natural selection long before we gained the capability to alter it. Now we are in the process of destroying it by accident as a byproduct of thoughtless growth. If we want to survive we should understand it and then carefully cultivate it for maximum performance.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        I agree that we shouldn't destroy value, especially by accident. My original point was that having this conversation in engineering terms is the only sensible way to have it.
      - therealdrag0 4y ago
        Why is the expansion of human civilization desirable? Why does preservation of human civilization depend on exterminating wild nature?
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        > If the best reason to preserve it The reason to persevere organic forms around us (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc.) is rational self-interest. Bacteria are necessary for our bodies' healthy operation. Organics generate the oxygen we need to breathe.
mym1990 4y ago
An absolutely crazy point of view. What is to stop this point of view to extending to people who are no longer “useful” to you? Do you just annihilate them?
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Moral equality?
  - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
    Some would say that non-human animals also have moral value.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      Some would, but I'm sure this is something about which reasonable people can disagree.
      - macintux 4y ago
        Slaves used to be sub-human. Women were property. Eventually, if we as a civilization survive long enough, our current treatment of animals will be universally felt to be immoral.
        andsoitis 4y ago
        It's even worse than that. It isn't as if slavery doesn't exist anymore. It is not as if women aren't considered property in some parts of the world. Racism. Etc.
abemiller 4y ago
I think your point is somewhat fair, and I agree that advancing medicine is not a great sole reason to keep around our fellow organics. There are a few ways to respond to this, including such notions as having intrinsic respect for nature, and appreciation for what natural selection has wrought. But for one and most simply with regard to your anthropocentric viewpoint, the ecosystems that these species constitute are actually critical to keeping civilization going in a practical economic sense. The theoretical human civilization that can withstand a global ecosystem collapse and exist on a paved over earth is perhaps possible with the right technology but also it is 1. very dreary and 2. much more expensive and difficult to maintain than just putting in some effort to prevent ecosystem collapse now. Fisheries management is a good microcosm for the cost of ecosystem collapse. If we manage a fish population correctly, we can continue to harvest fish from it and get resources out of it indefinitely. If we do not manage it well and let the population go extinct, we lose that pool of resources permanently and need to replace it with another equivalent source of food which may be very expensive in comparison. Perhaps the local human civilization which relied on the fish will be unable to adjust and will also fall.
- thegrimmest 4y ago
  Thank you for your good faith reply. I agree with everything you wrote, but don't see how saving importantly regarded mammals such as polar bears, elephants, whales and dolphins (etc.) fits into the picture. If these animals and others no longer have vast tracts of wilderness to roam on an anthropocentric earth, what's the downside?
  - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
    Extirpation of keystone species causes the rest of the food chain to become disrupted, resulting in proliferation of some species and extinction of others. The consequences for humans are zoonotic diseases and loss of natural food sources.
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      This is basically bioforming, and I'm sure it's more complicated than "removing keystone species == always bad". For instance, sperm whales compete significantly with humans for tuna fish, making up about 50% of the fish eaten. As our demand for tuna grows, wouldn't exterminating sperm whales help us meet that demand?
gnramires 4y ago
♫ They paved paradise... put up a parking lot ♫ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3g9_dnjaFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3g9_dnjaFY
- gnramires 4y ago
  In all seriousness, Isaac Asimov defended this approach (at least he explored in his books in a non-negative light): let's just live in Caves of Steel. I think this reply says it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934162 In short, I think from a humility standpoint that's probably not the best solution. I think there's value in preserving animal life, and also they really help balance Earth's environment which we don't understand well enough nor have adequate industries to replace yet, I believe. If we're going to live in Caves of Steel anyway, why not reserve say 50% of land for wild reserves? Do you want to have paradise and however many billion people you can fit in a planetary steel maze, or do you want just one single planetary steel maze with twice as many individuals? I think the answer is the former, pretty clearly. Also, in the long term we do have other planets we can build planetary scale steel mazes unimpeded, like Mercury -- I'm sure we'll be able to within a few centuries if we don't destroy our ourselves and our environmental sustainability (I'll be rooting for humanity meanwhile).
chordalkeyboard 4y ago
Basically humans are a part of the ecosystem whether we realize it or not, so destroying the natural world to make room for power plants and landfills threatens our survival by threatening our water, oxygen, and food with pollution like microplastics, PFAS, overfishing, etc.
andsoitis 4y ago
> What are they for? The reason to persevere organic forms around us (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc.) is rational self-interest. Bacteria are necessary for our bodies' healthy operation. Organics generate the oxygen we need to breathe.

JohnJamesRambo 4y ago

What the hell, man.

davzie 4y ago

This HAS to be trolling!

thegrimmest 4y ago
Believe it or not, I'm actually looking for a good faith refutation that doesn't rely on sentiment.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  Value is sentiment; you cannot refute a value statement without relying on it.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    Value is more than one thing, arguably. You kind of have to go back to first philosophical principles to unpick this. Which I guess is my point - if one's goal is the expansion and longevity of human civilization (which I think is reasonable) then it's not clear at all where the rest of organic life (which we compete with) fits into this picture. If the best reason to preserve it is "it's pretty to look at" and "maybe we'll get some medical advances" then let's just admit that. I'm only suggesting that this is something about which reasonable people can (and have) disagree.
    - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
      > the rest of organic life (which we compete with) Here is the issue: it is more than mere competition. We co-exist in a delicate balance with the rest of life, or at least we used to. Now we threaten to destroy them, and the planet on which we depend, exactly because of this implicit belief that we compete with them instead of relying on them.
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        I think we need to engineer this balance. The ones we need we keep; the ones we don't, we don't. This is basically bioforming.
        chordalkeyboard 4y ago
        I agree, and we should probably understand it before we change it. It was already engineered by natural selection long before we gained the capability to alter it. Now we are in the process of destroying it by accident as a byproduct of thoughtless growth. If we want to survive we should understand it and then carefully cultivate it for maximum performance.
        thegrimmest 4y ago
        I agree that we shouldn't destroy value, especially by accident. My original point was that having this conversation in engineering terms is the only sensible way to have it.
    - therealdrag0 4y ago
      Why is the expansion of human civilization desirable? Why does preservation of human civilization depend on exterminating wild nature?
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      > If the best reason to preserve it The reason to persevere organic forms around us (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc.) is rational self-interest. Bacteria are necessary for our bodies' healthy operation. Organics generate the oxygen we need to breathe.

mym1990 4y ago

An absolutely crazy point of view. What is to stop this point of view to extending to people who are no longer “useful” to you? Do you just annihilate them?

thegrimmest 4y ago
Moral equality?
- chordalkeyboard 4y ago
  Some would say that non-human animals also have moral value.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    Some would, but I'm sure this is something about which reasonable people can disagree.
    - macintux 4y ago
      Slaves used to be sub-human. Women were property. Eventually, if we as a civilization survive long enough, our current treatment of animals will be universally felt to be immoral.
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        It's even worse than that. It isn't as if slavery doesn't exist anymore. It is not as if women aren't considered property in some parts of the world. Racism. Etc.

abemiller 4y ago

I think your point is somewhat fair, and I agree that advancing medicine is not a great sole reason to keep around our fellow organics. There are a few ways to respond to this, including such notions as having intrinsic respect for nature, and appreciation for what natural selection has wrought. But for one and most simply with regard to your anthropocentric viewpoint, the ecosystems that these species constitute are actually critical to keeping civilization going in a practical economic sense. The theoretical human civilization that can withstand a global ecosystem collapse and exist on a paved over earth is perhaps possible with the right technology but also it is 1. very dreary and 2. much more expensive and difficult to maintain than just putting in some effort to prevent ecosystem collapse now. Fisheries management is a good microcosm for the cost of ecosystem collapse. If we manage a fish population correctly, we can continue to harvest fish from it and get resources out of it indefinitely. If we do not manage it well and let the population go extinct, we lose that pool of resources permanently and need to replace it with another equivalent source of food which may be very expensive in comparison. Perhaps the local human civilization which relied on the fish will be unable to adjust and will also fall.

thegrimmest 4y ago
Thank you for your good faith reply. I agree with everything you wrote, but don't see how saving importantly regarded mammals such as polar bears, elephants, whales and dolphins (etc.) fits into the picture. If these animals and others no longer have vast tracts of wilderness to roam on an anthropocentric earth, what's the downside?
- chordalkeyboard 4y ago
  Extirpation of keystone species causes the rest of the food chain to become disrupted, resulting in proliferation of some species and extinction of others. The consequences for humans are zoonotic diseases and loss of natural food sources.
  - thegrimmest 4y ago
    This is basically bioforming, and I'm sure it's more complicated than "removing keystone species == always bad". For instance, sperm whales compete significantly with humans for tuna fish, making up about 50% of the fish eaten. As our demand for tuna grows, wouldn't exterminating sperm whales help us meet that demand?

gnramires 4y ago

♫ They paved paradise... put up a parking lot ♫ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3g9_dnjaFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3g9_dnjaFY

gnramires 4y ago
In all seriousness, Isaac Asimov defended this approach (at least he explored in his books in a non-negative light): let's just live in Caves of Steel. I think this reply says it better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934162 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32934162 In short, I think from a humility standpoint that's probably not the best solution. I think there's value in preserving animal life, and also they really help balance Earth's environment which we don't understand well enough nor have adequate industries to replace yet, I believe. If we're going to live in Caves of Steel anyway, why not reserve say 50% of land for wild reserves? Do you want to have paradise and however many billion people you can fit in a planetary steel maze, or do you want just one single planetary steel maze with twice as many individuals? I think the answer is the former, pretty clearly. Also, in the long term we do have other planets we can build planetary scale steel mazes unimpeded, like Mercury -- I'm sure we'll be able to within a few centuries if we don't destroy our ourselves and our environmental sustainability (I'll be rooting for humanity meanwhile).

chordalkeyboard 4y ago

Basically humans are a part of the ecosystem whether we realize it or not, so destroying the natural world to make room for power plants and landfills threatens our survival by threatening our water, oxygen, and food with pollution like microplastics, PFAS, overfishing, etc.

andsoitis 4y ago

> What are they for? The reason to persevere organic forms around us (plants, animals, fungi, bacteria, etc.) is rational self-interest. Bacteria are necessary for our bodies' healthy operation. Organics generate the oxygen we need to breathe.