6 ms·

Am I the only to think that it's kinda sad that the standard reaction when we find something new is to remove it from where it was and dissect it? If it was so

Am I the only to think that it's kinda sad that the standard reaction when we find something new is to remove it from where it was and dissect it? If it was some creature that's evolving we surely stopped it in its track.

furyofantares 3y ago
> If it was some creature that's evolving we surely stopped it in its track. Pokemon style evolution?
night-rider 3y ago
> If it was some creature that's evolving we surely stopped it in its track. Unless there's many of these things floating about. A small sample to dissect isn't going to slow down the march of evolution.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  True, but considering it's the only one we've found and we have no idea what it is it doesn't seem a good idea to assume that.
  - saaaaaam 3y ago
    This is a little like examining a very small public park, poisoning a pigeon[^1] and worrying that you’ve wiped out an entire species. I think we should have a certain amount of trust in actual scientists that when conducting a very small scale survey of a bit of the ocean floor the cost benefit analysis of taking an unrecognised thing is carried out in a way that means they are not causing an extinction. [^1] Whether you use peanuts coated with cyanide is entirely up to you.
    - salawat 3y ago
      >I think we should have a certain amount of trust in actual scientists that when conducting a very small scale survey of a bit of the ocean floor the cost benefit analysis of taking an unrecognised thing is carried out in a way that means they are not causing an extinction. I think we should have a certain amount of trust in actual scientists that when conducting gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens the cost-benefit analysis is done in such a way as to mean that they don't cause a pandemic. As it turns out, scientists can often be the last people we want doing the cost benefit analysis of their own work.
      - saaaaaam 3y ago
        You may have a valid point! However thinking again about what I actually meant (vs how I expressed it) it’s probably clearer if I edit to “the institutions of science are generally fairly good (with some notable outlier exceptions) at self regulating - and almost certainly better at this than (probably) non-expert opinion.”
        salawat 3y ago
        The myth of the expert is the lie that makes the world go round, and is largely responsible for people cutting a lot of terrible things a blank check. Before you relinquish your claim of significance in a context on the pretext of not being an expert, keep in mind that the people who bill themselves as such have a vested interest in maintaining your distanced deference, and when really pushed, will usually be coaxable into running into some aspect of the problem space where they are decidedly not an expert. Be an expert at living your life, and deciding what you want to see, don't, and doing everything possible to be informed, but never let anyone convince you that your input doesn't count. In point of fact, your willingness to let that be the case is just what the "experts" are counting on. Nothing incites more fear into those that think they know, and others just can't understand, than steadied, pressured, insistence to share it, and make it understandable.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      This weirdly specific* analogy fails because we all know very well what pigeons are. If you were examining a public part and you poisoned a kind of bird you'd never seen before and that nobody recognized, I think most people would regard that as a mistake. * if you're actually poisoning birds for fun, get therapy.
      - saaaaaam 3y ago
        It’s a weirdly specific analogy referencing Tom Lehrer. I’m not poisoning pigeons :) https://youtu.be/yhuMLpdnOjY https://youtu.be/yhuMLpdnOjY
petesergeant 3y ago
Being conspicuous to predators sounds like something that's liable to get weeded out by evolutionary pressure anyway
CamperBob2 3y ago
"Wir mussen wissen, wir werden wissen." - Hilbert
- tiffanyg 3y ago
  Nein. - Gödel "Ignoramus et ignorabimus." Turtles all the way down...
jlund-molfese 3y ago
Reminds me of Prometheus, which was the oldest known living tree in the world—before it was cut down (although its age wasn't known at the time) [0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  Reaction: Even for the 1960s, that was incredibly callous. Hence why scientists and doctors shouldn’t and mustn’t get a free pass.
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    Sorry, this went over my head: could you expand on it a bit? * things that have unclear significance to me and might be the part I'm missing: "reaction:" label, doctors, free pass, and finally callous (I know the word meaning, but it seems there was sensitivity and regard?)
    - nobodyandproud 3y ago
      > Here, stories diverge. It is not clear whether Currey requested, or Forest Service personnel suggested, that he cut down and section the tree in lieu of coring it. There is also some uncertainty as to why a core sample could not be obtained. One version has is that he broke or lodged his only long increment borer and could not obtain another before the end of the field season;[7] another claims he broke two of them, while another implies that a core sample was too difficult to obtain and also would not provide as much definitive information as a full cross-section of the tree. Currey said that the tree cores were too small and difficult to read so he used a chain saw and cut the tree down. Why was Currey so obsessed with sampling this particular tree and not any of the other, given the difficulties? More importantly, why was Currey so keen on cutting this tree down when it was so difficult? It's all he-said/she-said, but what's clear is that even for those times the decision was held into question and very strongly disliked. Cox was pinned as the decision maker, but it's not clear how (if at all) Currey was held accountable. References: - https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Staying-Alive-High-in-California-s-White-2995266.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Staying-Alive-High-in-Ca... - http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/Martyr.html http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/Martyr.html
twic 3y ago
Indeed. We ought to be eating them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37297360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37297360
op00to 3y ago
Maybe it shouldn’t evolve to be so shiny and gold so land monkeys won’t try to steal it. This is literally natural selection at work.
catlifeonmars 3y ago
> If it was some creature that's evolving we surely stopped it in its track. Not quite how evolution works in that (1) organisms are never in a state of evolving (or not evolving), and (2) evolution (i.e by random mutation and natural selection) operates over a gene pool or population, not at the level of individual organisms. I do however echo your sadness, that we can’t easily study things without killing a few of them first.
Mistletoe 3y ago
It seems pretty certain to me it is an egg casing and the inhabitant already left through that ripped part.
- eggy 3y ago
  The egg from Aliens vs. Predator! It's out and about now. Or the Orb from Woody Allen's, 'Sleeper'[1], except that was silver. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAKWKfVcd04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAKWKfVcd04
Obscurity4340 3y ago
Should have setup some cameras and mics and waited to see what would happen or interact with it
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bsza 3y ago
From the photo it looks like it either has already hatched or something ate it, as the article also seems to suggest: > It is over 10 centimeters (4 inches) in diameter and had a small tear near its base.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  but you don’t know that, that’s just a guess
pvaldes 3y ago
Individuals don't matter [With a few exceptions]. Only populations matter.
- rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
  Where’s the population?
  - XorNot 3y ago
    How else do you imagine that thing came into existence?
    - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
      It couldn’t be the first?
ncr100 3y ago
No, but I am torn between sad and "fine with it", because of the "it is my planet" logic. Arrogant, and the likely justification for strip-mining etc, though honestly that thinking also lives in my mind.
- dylan604 3y ago
  "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Has been quoted to me so often or at least that version from which ever translation chosen to essentially justify "we do what we want"
njharman 3y ago
I had same thought as your first sentence. But you lost me on the second. Evolution operates by being fit for your environment. If that environment is dominated by ecosystem destroying humans. Adapt or be replaced with life that has. Most have "opted" to die out. We are currently in the six mass extinction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Johnny555 3y ago
I’m much more concerned that humans are likely responsible for driving a 6th mass extinction event of current known species than the idea that scientists may have uncovered (and removed for study) the only specimen of a new species, derailing its evolution. https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-6th-mass-extinction/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-6th-mass-extinction...

furyofantares 3y ago

> If it was some creature that's evolving we surely stopped it in its track. Pokemon style evolution?

night-rider 3y ago

> If it was some creature that's evolving we surely stopped it in its track. Unless there's many of these things floating about. A small sample to dissect isn't going to slow down the march of evolution.

anigbrowl 3y ago
True, but considering it's the only one we've found and we have no idea what it is it doesn't seem a good idea to assume that.
- saaaaaam 3y ago
  This is a little like examining a very small public park, poisoning a pigeon[^1] and worrying that you’ve wiped out an entire species. I think we should have a certain amount of trust in actual scientists that when conducting a very small scale survey of a bit of the ocean floor the cost benefit analysis of taking an unrecognised thing is carried out in a way that means they are not causing an extinction. [^1] Whether you use peanuts coated with cyanide is entirely up to you.
  - salawat 3y ago
    >I think we should have a certain amount of trust in actual scientists that when conducting a very small scale survey of a bit of the ocean floor the cost benefit analysis of taking an unrecognised thing is carried out in a way that means they are not causing an extinction. I think we should have a certain amount of trust in actual scientists that when conducting gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens the cost-benefit analysis is done in such a way as to mean that they don't cause a pandemic. As it turns out, scientists can often be the last people we want doing the cost benefit analysis of their own work.
    - saaaaaam 3y ago
      You may have a valid point! However thinking again about what I actually meant (vs how I expressed it) it’s probably clearer if I edit to “the institutions of science are generally fairly good (with some notable outlier exceptions) at self regulating - and almost certainly better at this than (probably) non-expert opinion.”
      - salawat 3y ago
        The myth of the expert is the lie that makes the world go round, and is largely responsible for people cutting a lot of terrible things a blank check. Before you relinquish your claim of significance in a context on the pretext of not being an expert, keep in mind that the people who bill themselves as such have a vested interest in maintaining your distanced deference, and when really pushed, will usually be coaxable into running into some aspect of the problem space where they are decidedly not an expert. Be an expert at living your life, and deciding what you want to see, don't, and doing everything possible to be informed, but never let anyone convince you that your input doesn't count. In point of fact, your willingness to let that be the case is just what the "experts" are counting on. Nothing incites more fear into those that think they know, and others just can't understand, than steadied, pressured, insistence to share it, and make it understandable.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    This weirdly specific* analogy fails because we all know very well what pigeons are. If you were examining a public part and you poisoned a kind of bird you'd never seen before and that nobody recognized, I think most people would regard that as a mistake. * if you're actually poisoning birds for fun, get therapy.
    - saaaaaam 3y ago
      It’s a weirdly specific analogy referencing Tom Lehrer. I’m not poisoning pigeons :) https://youtu.be/yhuMLpdnOjY https://youtu.be/yhuMLpdnOjY

petesergeant 3y ago

Being conspicuous to predators sounds like something that's liable to get weeded out by evolutionary pressure anyway

CamperBob2 3y ago

"Wir mussen wissen, wir werden wissen." - Hilbert

tiffanyg 3y ago
Nein. - Gödel "Ignoramus et ignorabimus." Turtles all the way down...

jlund-molfese 3y ago

Reminds me of Prometheus, which was the oldest known living tree in the world—before it was cut down (although its age wasn't known at the time) [0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(tree)

nobodyandproud 3y ago
Reaction: Even for the 1960s, that was incredibly callous. Hence why scientists and doctors shouldn’t and mustn’t get a free pass.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  Sorry, this went over my head: could you expand on it a bit? * things that have unclear significance to me and might be the part I'm missing: "reaction:" label, doctors, free pass, and finally callous (I know the word meaning, but it seems there was sensitivity and regard?)
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    > Here, stories diverge. It is not clear whether Currey requested, or Forest Service personnel suggested, that he cut down and section the tree in lieu of coring it. There is also some uncertainty as to why a core sample could not be obtained. One version has is that he broke or lodged his only long increment borer and could not obtain another before the end of the field season;[7] another claims he broke two of them, while another implies that a core sample was too difficult to obtain and also would not provide as much definitive information as a full cross-section of the tree. Currey said that the tree cores were too small and difficult to read so he used a chain saw and cut the tree down. Why was Currey so obsessed with sampling this particular tree and not any of the other, given the difficulties? More importantly, why was Currey so keen on cutting this tree down when it was so difficult? It's all he-said/she-said, but what's clear is that even for those times the decision was held into question and very strongly disliked. Cox was pinned as the decision maker, but it's not clear how (if at all) Currey was held accountable. References: - https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Staying-Alive-High-in-California-s-White-2995266.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Staying-Alive-High-in-Ca... - http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/Martyr.html http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/Martyr.html

twic 3y ago

Indeed. We ought to be eating them: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37297360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37297360

op00to 3y ago

Maybe it shouldn’t evolve to be so shiny and gold so land monkeys won’t try to steal it. This is literally natural selection at work.

catlifeonmars 3y ago

> If it was some creature that's evolving we surely stopped it in its track. Not quite how evolution works in that (1) organisms are never in a state of evolving (or not evolving), and (2) evolution (i.e by random mutation and natural selection) operates over a gene pool or population, not at the level of individual organisms. I do however echo your sadness, that we can’t easily study things without killing a few of them first.

Mistletoe 3y ago

It seems pretty certain to me it is an egg casing and the inhabitant already left through that ripped part.

eggy 3y ago
The egg from Aliens vs. Predator! It's out and about now. Or the Orb from Woody Allen's, 'Sleeper'[1], except that was silver. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAKWKfVcd04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAKWKfVcd04

Obscurity4340 3y ago

Should have setup some cameras and mics and waited to see what would happen or interact with it

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bsza 3y ago

From the photo it looks like it either has already hatched or something ate it, as the article also seems to suggest: > It is over 10 centimeters (4 inches) in diameter and had a small tear near its base.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
but you don’t know that, that’s just a guess

pvaldes 3y ago

Individuals don't matter [With a few exceptions]. Only populations matter.

rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
Where’s the population?
- XorNot 3y ago
  How else do you imagine that thing came into existence?
  - rTX5CMRXIfFG 3y ago
    It couldn’t be the first?

ncr100 3y ago

No, but I am torn between sad and "fine with it", because of the "it is my planet" logic. Arrogant, and the likely justification for strip-mining etc, though honestly that thinking also lives in my mind.

dylan604 3y ago
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." Has been quoted to me so often or at least that version from which ever translation chosen to essentially justify "we do what we want"

njharman 3y ago

I had same thought as your first sentence. But you lost me on the second. Evolution operates by being fit for your environment. If that environment is dominated by ecosystem destroying humans. Adapt or be replaced with life that has. Most have "opted" to die out. We are currently in the six mass extinction, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

Johnny555 3y ago

I’m much more concerned that humans are likely responsible for driving a 6th mass extinction event of current known species than the idea that scientists may have uncovered (and removed for study) the only specimen of a new species, derailing its evolution. https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-6th-mass-extinction/ https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-6th-mass-extinction...