6 ms·

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:/

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
    - refulgentis 3y ago
      > 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? From Wikipedia [7], above [1]: "In 1964, Currey was zeroing in on trees that seemed to be nearly as old as their California relatives. One in particular, which he called WPN-114, seemed to be very old indeed." "he asked...Forest Service ranger [for the park] from 1959-67, for permission to cut [it] down. Permission was granted..."this tree was like many others and was not the type that the public would visit," Cox wrote in his [1996] memo. "I felt that this tree's best purpose would be to serve scientific and educational programs." Unclear to me what this has to do with doctors/scientists in general in your first contribution. Keeping it to the personal focus on Currey in the second, is personal animus deserved? IMHO no, given the sources you provided from the Wikipedia article: if I had read just the Wikipedia article, I'd agree with ya, the short version can be read as indicting Currey if so desired.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - nobodyandproud 3y ago
        > Unclear to me what this has to do with doctors/scientists in general in your first contribution > ... Cox wrote in his [1996] memo. "I felt that this tree's best purpose would be to serve scientific and educational programs." Yes, your quote points out that Cox made the decision. But this is where you and I disagree deeply: > Intensive study of the bristlecone was begun in the 1950s by scientist Edmund Schulman. In 1958, he announced in National Geographic the discovery of Methuselah Walk...the oldest of Schulman's trees had been alive at least 4,600 years, he reckoned. Then of course later: > In 1964, Currey was zeroing in on trees that seemed to be nearly as old as their California relatives. One in particular, which he called WPN-114, seemed to be very old indeed. A thorough reading would show that Currey knew that this tree was extremely ancient; and likely why he was keen to get readings from it. Which is of course also why this tree would serve a scientific purpose; but it's not at all clear that even for that time, cutting down the tree was necessary nor desirable to achieve this goal. > When this student and his associate came upon the bristlecones at the timberline, they began to take core samples from several trees, discovering one to be over 4,000 years old! Needless to say they were excited, and at some point, their only coring tool broke. The end of the field season was nearing. In other words, our geologist is being given a free pass for chopping down what he certainly knew was a very ancient and long-lived organism; simply for his PhD and because they didn't want to wait another year.
jauco 3y ago
IIRC: In “a short history of nearly everything” there is a story of a species of bird being thought extinct and then, mere miles apart, two people stumble upon a last surviving member. One stumbles upon a male, the other upon a female. They both shoot their finding thinking “this is the last one, what a prize!”
pvaldes 3y ago
Leading to the protection to all the pine population in the area.
fortran77 3y ago
It's more like Ming, who I felt genuinely sad for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_(clam) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_(clam) Sitting happily in the ocean for 405 years.
- zharknado 3y ago
  Schrödinger’s clam.
- nico 3y ago
  > Thought to be 405 years old, Ming was later determined to be 507 years old, although the clam had previously been killed to make this determination

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
  - refulgentis 3y ago
    > 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? From Wikipedia [7], above [1]: "In 1964, Currey was zeroing in on trees that seemed to be nearly as old as their California relatives. One in particular, which he called WPN-114, seemed to be very old indeed." "he asked...Forest Service ranger [for the park] from 1959-67, for permission to cut [it] down. Permission was granted..."this tree was like many others and was not the type that the public would visit," Cox wrote in his [1996] memo. "I felt that this tree's best purpose would be to serve scientific and educational programs." Unclear to me what this has to do with doctors/scientists in general in your first contribution. Keeping it to the personal focus on Currey in the second, is personal animus deserved? IMHO no, given the sources you provided from the Wikipedia article: if I had read just the Wikipedia article, I'd agree with ya, the short version can be read as indicting Currey if so desired.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - nobodyandproud 3y ago
      > Unclear to me what this has to do with doctors/scientists in general in your first contribution > ... Cox wrote in his [1996] memo. "I felt that this tree's best purpose would be to serve scientific and educational programs." Yes, your quote points out that Cox made the decision. But this is where you and I disagree deeply: > Intensive study of the bristlecone was begun in the 1950s by scientist Edmund Schulman. In 1958, he announced in National Geographic the discovery of Methuselah Walk...the oldest of Schulman's trees had been alive at least 4,600 years, he reckoned. Then of course later: > In 1964, Currey was zeroing in on trees that seemed to be nearly as old as their California relatives. One in particular, which he called WPN-114, seemed to be very old indeed. A thorough reading would show that Currey knew that this tree was extremely ancient; and likely why he was keen to get readings from it. Which is of course also why this tree would serve a scientific purpose; but it's not at all clear that even for that time, cutting down the tree was necessary nor desirable to achieve this goal. > When this student and his associate came upon the bristlecones at the timberline, they began to take core samples from several trees, discovering one to be over 4,000 years old! Needless to say they were excited, and at some point, their only coring tool broke. The end of the field season was nearing. In other words, our geologist is being given a free pass for chopping down what he certainly knew was a very ancient and long-lived organism; simply for his PhD and because they didn't want to wait another year.

jauco 3y ago

IIRC: In “a short history of nearly everything” there is a story of a species of bird being thought extinct and then, mere miles apart, two people stumble upon a last surviving member. One stumbles upon a male, the other upon a female. They both shoot their finding thinking “this is the last one, what a prize!”

pvaldes 3y ago

Leading to the protection to all the pine population in the area.

fortran77 3y ago

It's more like Ming, who I felt genuinely sad for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_(clam) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_(clam) Sitting happily in the ocean for 405 years.

zharknado 3y ago
Schrödinger’s clam.
nico 3y ago
> Thought to be 405 years old, Ming was later determined to be 507 years old, although the clam had previously been killed to make this determination