4 ms·

> 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'

> 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

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