3 ms·

What is the optimal number of species? Is there a universally optimal number or does it depend on conditions on the planet? On one extreme, if each individual o

by imgabe 3y ago

What is the optimal number of species? Is there a universally optimal number or does it depend on conditions on the planet? On one extreme, if each individual organism were its own species, nothing would be able to mate and everything would die. If everything were one species, one disease or change in environment could wipe everything out. So, those clearly are bad. But somewhere in the middle must be a "best" number for some metric. Ecological resilience would probably be a good metric, if we could measure that. There is the assumption in a lot of the environmental rhetoric that whatever number of species and the exact types of species that existed ~200 years ago when we started keeping track are the optimal ones and that they should stay that way forever. It doesn't work that way though. If a species goes extinct, it's because its environment changed and it's no longer adapted to it. Whether the source of that change is another species (humans) or something else is irrelevant. A new species will come along that's better adapted.

hunter-gatherer 3y ago
(Personal opinion with no intent to argue or pursuade) I think you are asking the wrong optimisation question. Indeed species have been going extinct forever and differing rates. I think what we should be optimizing for is quality. I remember as a kid growing up in SE Utah just being overwhelmed with insect, reptile, amphibian, and small game wildlife in the area. You didn't look for it, it was just around. I visit frequently and have been amazed at the decline I've witnessed in just 30 years. So few of everything. Now we search for lizards and horned toads. I hardly ever see butterflies and bees. It's [not] wild. I also just drove in August from SE Idaho to Tacoma. Mostly through Montana and Idaho. I didn't have to clean my windshield once the entire trip, there and back. I remember driving as a teenager it seemed like I always had to clean my windshield, even driving on I-15 from Salt Lake city to SE Idaho. Cleaning dead bugs off my windshield is something I don't need to do anymore. I haven't done it for a long time. We could model our existence in a way to just optmize for our species existence. Humans have been running species into existence for a long time in order to populate. I think we should optimize the other way though. I think we would if we assumed that our mentally advanced status assumed a stewardship-like responsibility. Instead we take and take and take. I've been guilty as anyone, but have tried to be more mindful as I've gotten older and limit my consumption, and make sacrifices to do so where I see nobody else in my immediate sphere doing the same. I do that because I liked having nature be outside my doorstep. I don't think there is an asumption that there was or is an optimal number of species, I think it is just that some people have seen a tranformation that they don't like.
jdiff 3y ago
This is a borderline nonsensical question, because this isn't something you can solve for X. What those species are and what niche they fill matters quite a lot. Genetic diversity within these species also matters. Countless other things matter. The rate of extinction has gone up drastically, and there are not new species cropping up to fill the growing holes.
- imgabe 3y ago
  That's the point. If you don't even know what the optimum is or what you should even optimize for, why jump to the conclusion that some change is bad? If a species is extinct there is no hole. The hole it filled in the ecosystem is gone. If it were still there, it wouldn't be extinct. There will be a different hole and a different species. Yes, they don't come up overnight, but life will evolve to exploit an opportunity where there is one.
  - jdiff 3y ago
    This isn't true. Holes can become unlivable for a species for other reasons than the hole vanishing. The hole still exists, and further the collapse of the species filling it leads other species to collapse, creating growing fissures. Now, wounds heal, yes, if and only if given the time to. If you chop off your entire arm, you'll bleed out long before it scars over.
  - doubloon 3y ago
    Monoculture is a security and resiliency risk whether it is in technological or in biological systems. You do not know the optimum because you do not know the threats.

by imgabe 3y ago

hunter-gatherer 3y ago

(Personal opinion with no intent to argue or pursuade) I think you are asking the wrong optimisation question. Indeed species have been going extinct forever and differing rates. I think what we should be optimizing for is quality. I remember as a kid growing up in SE Utah just being overwhelmed with insect, reptile, amphibian, and small game wildlife in the area. You didn't look for it, it was just around. I visit frequently and have been amazed at the decline I've witnessed in just 30 years. So few of everything. Now we search for lizards and horned toads. I hardly ever see butterflies and bees. It's [not] wild. I also just drove in August from SE Idaho to Tacoma. Mostly through Montana and Idaho. I didn't have to clean my windshield once the entire trip, there and back. I remember driving as a teenager it seemed like I always had to clean my windshield, even driving on I-15 from Salt Lake city to SE Idaho. Cleaning dead bugs off my windshield is something I don't need to do anymore. I haven't done it for a long time. We could model our existence in a way to just optmize for our species existence. Humans have been running species into existence for a long time in order to populate. I think we should optimize the other way though. I think we would if we assumed that our mentally advanced status assumed a stewardship-like responsibility. Instead we take and take and take. I've been guilty as anyone, but have tried to be more mindful as I've gotten older and limit my consumption, and make sacrifices to do so where I see nobody else in my immediate sphere doing the same. I do that because I liked having nature be outside my doorstep. I don't think there is an asumption that there was or is an optimal number of species, I think it is just that some people have seen a tranformation that they don't like.

jdiff 3y ago

This is a borderline nonsensical question, because this isn't something you can solve for X. What those species are and what niche they fill matters quite a lot. Genetic diversity within these species also matters. Countless other things matter. The rate of extinction has gone up drastically, and there are not new species cropping up to fill the growing holes.

imgabe 3y ago
That's the point. If you don't even know what the optimum is or what you should even optimize for, why jump to the conclusion that some change is bad? If a species is extinct there is no hole. The hole it filled in the ecosystem is gone. If it were still there, it wouldn't be extinct. There will be a different hole and a different species. Yes, they don't come up overnight, but life will evolve to exploit an opportunity where there is one.
- jdiff 3y ago
  This isn't true. Holes can become unlivable for a species for other reasons than the hole vanishing. The hole still exists, and further the collapse of the species filling it leads other species to collapse, creating growing fissures. Now, wounds heal, yes, if and only if given the time to. If you chop off your entire arm, you'll bleed out long before it scars over.
- doubloon 3y ago
  Monoculture is a security and resiliency risk whether it is in technological or in biological systems. You do not know the optimum because you do not know the threats.