4 ms·

All the vultures suddenly died because farmers began treating their animals with a new drug that was harmless to the animals, but which was deadly to vultures t

All the vultures suddenly died because farmers began treating their animals with a new drug that was harmless to the animals, but which was deadly to vultures that ate animals who had been treated with it. After all the vultures died there was less efficient scavenging of dead animals, more polluted water, and more disease. The delicate balance of Nature was upset.

enjeyw 3y ago
> The delicate balance of Nature was upset. Fascinating stuff. A subtle build on this that just struck me: "The delicate balance of Nature moved to a new equilibrium point that involved a lot more human deaths" I think it's interesting because it strikes me that Nature is actually a pretty resilient system, it's just that a lot of its stable-states are hostile to human life, to varying degrees. Then again, maybe I'm painting too much of an anthropocentric picture.
- owlninja 3y ago
  It is incredible how humans are incredibly resilient, but also very fragile.
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    The collective is resilient, it's individuals that perish.
    - chrisco255 3y ago
      The collective perishes, it's individuals that persist.
- worrycue 3y ago
  > it's just that a lot of its stable-states are hostile to ~~human~~ life FTFY. We humans are part of nature too.
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    FTFY: here’s a nature’s nature article on nature (pun intended) [0]. There’s 4 main definition which are exclusive to each others and guess what, your “fix” is within the same definition as GP: > The whole universe, as it is the place, the source and the result of material phenomena (including man or at least man’s body) Furthermore I think his point wasn’t about the definition of nature but instead going further on the classic argument “nature will be fine”. Of course universe will always be fine! But your descend may not be part of it. So yes, we should preserve the current equilibrium to preserve ourselves and that’s what this article is all about. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0390-y#Tab1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0390-y#Tab1
- OscarCunningham 3y ago
  I'd add a couple of points: 1. Nature isn't an 'equilibrium' and doesn't have 'stable states'. It's a constantly changing complex system that can produce catastrophic changes without any external triggers. 2. What people view as 'nature' is often itself a situation that humans have created. For example in this post the preexisting situation was vultures feeding on livestock, but the vultures weren't doing that before humans were around.
  - aziaziazi 3y ago
    Also vulture were probably consuming other mammals before human replace most of them with livestock. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > "The delicate balance of Nature moved to a new equilibrium point that involved a lot more human deaths" As OscarCunningham has pointed out, nature does not have a balance or an equilibrium. That's the concept of "evolution".
pfannkuchen 3y ago
> less efficient scavenging of dead animals, more polluted water, and more disease The first one, yes, but for the others isn’t it kind of hard to evaluate the counter factual? How do we tease this apart from all the other factors contributing to polluted water and disease?
throwaway2037 3y ago
This drug (diclofenac) is partly covered in Arundhati Roy's novel "The Ministry of Utmost Happiness". More here: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/news-and-features/articles/arundhati-roy/ https://www.kirkusreviews.com/news-and-features/articles/aru... And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis
dxbydt 3y ago
> The delicate balance of Nature was upset So what ? If Nature is upset you can submit it to Cell or Science. If its of interest to the medical community JAMA or Lancet might pick it up. At a 5% significance level, h-index of Nature is not that much different from these other peer reviewed publications.
psiops 3y ago
Not even that delicate, usually quite robust really. The interventions humans throw at it are just too massive.

enjeyw 3y ago

> The delicate balance of Nature was upset. Fascinating stuff. A subtle build on this that just struck me: "The delicate balance of Nature moved to a new equilibrium point that involved a lot more human deaths" I think it's interesting because it strikes me that Nature is actually a pretty resilient system, it's just that a lot of its stable-states are hostile to human life, to varying degrees. Then again, maybe I'm painting too much of an anthropocentric picture.

owlninja 3y ago
It is incredible how humans are incredibly resilient, but also very fragile.
- wddkcs 3y ago
  The collective is resilient, it's individuals that perish.
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    The collective perishes, it's individuals that persist.
worrycue 3y ago
> it's just that a lot of its stable-states are hostile to ~~human~~ life FTFY. We humans are part of nature too.
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  FTFY: here’s a nature’s nature article on nature (pun intended) [0]. There’s 4 main definition which are exclusive to each others and guess what, your “fix” is within the same definition as GP: > The whole universe, as it is the place, the source and the result of material phenomena (including man or at least man’s body) Furthermore I think his point wasn’t about the definition of nature but instead going further on the classic argument “nature will be fine”. Of course universe will always be fine! But your descend may not be part of it. So yes, we should preserve the current equilibrium to preserve ourselves and that’s what this article is all about. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0390-y#Tab1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0390-y#Tab1
OscarCunningham 3y ago
I'd add a couple of points: 1. Nature isn't an 'equilibrium' and doesn't have 'stable states'. It's a constantly changing complex system that can produce catastrophic changes without any external triggers. 2. What people view as 'nature' is often itself a situation that humans have created. For example in this post the preexisting situation was vultures feeding on livestock, but the vultures weren't doing that before humans were around.
- aziaziazi 3y ago
  Also vulture were probably consuming other mammals before human replace most of them with livestock. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline
thaumasiotes 3y ago
> "The delicate balance of Nature moved to a new equilibrium point that involved a lot more human deaths" As OscarCunningham has pointed out, nature does not have a balance or an equilibrium. That's the concept of "evolution".

pfannkuchen 3y ago

> less efficient scavenging of dead animals, more polluted water, and more disease The first one, yes, but for the others isn’t it kind of hard to evaluate the counter factual? How do we tease this apart from all the other factors contributing to polluted water and disease?

throwaway2037 3y ago

This drug (diclofenac) is partly covered in Arundhati Roy's novel "The Ministry of Utmost Happiness". More here: https://www.kirkusreviews.com/news-and-features/articles/arundhati-roy/ https://www.kirkusreviews.com/news-and-features/articles/aru... And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_vulture_crisis

dxbydt 3y ago

> The delicate balance of Nature was upset So what ? If Nature is upset you can submit it to Cell or Science. If its of interest to the medical community JAMA or Lancet might pick it up. At a 5% significance level, h-index of Nature is not that much different from these other peer reviewed publications.

psiops 3y ago

Not even that delicate, usually quite robust really. The interventions humans throw at it are just too massive.