7 ms·
All true, but who is to say that the impacts of human-accelerated stochastic gradient descent are necessarily evil?
by jakear 3y ago
All true, but who is to say that the impacts of human-accelerated stochastic gradient descent are necessarily evil?
- BuyMyBitcoins 3y agoIsn’t this just an argument of nihilism? If it doesn’t matter because native/weed is an artificial distinction, or because it is by definition insignificant on a geologic timescale, then why get upset at people trying to change or reverse “the gradient” in any way?
- jakear 3y agoI’m not upset at anyone, though people seem upset at me for pointing out the futility. I suppose the resources could be better spent doing something else, though I couldn’t tell you what that’d be.
- BuyMyBitcoins 3y agoAll I’ll say is that while I am not a biologist or an ecologist, I do know several who work on conservation projects and efforts to counteract invasive species. This story shares so many similarities with other cases of an introduced species radically changing the regions ecology and that in and of itself is incredibly alarming to them. Yes, at the end of the day the Earth doesn’t care and life will go on. But trying to maintain some semblance of a minimally invaded ecosystem is valuable to these folks and I greatly respect their efforts.
- rcoveson 3y agoHow to better spend resources than commenting multiple times per hour in defense of the idea that nobody here can prove that an effort to cull an invasive weed will have an impact on the ecosystem in a million years? You could go lie down and listen to music or something (though I warn you, I can't prove that it will have any effect on a geological timescale).