5 ms·
I work in biotech as well, and the idea that the extinction of 21 species from an estimate 8M+ species has any sort of meaningful impact on biomedical research
by BenFranklin100 3y ago
I work in biotech as well, and the idea that the extinction of 21 species from an estimate 8M+ species has any sort of meaningful impact on biomedical research or the understanding of basic biology is ludicrous.
Further your post is histrionic. ‘Environmental collapse’, ‘destroying our inheritance’, ‘alarming rate’, suggests an individual who is pushing an agenda rather than rationally appraising the current state of the ever-changing environment and biological ecosystem.
- NPC82 3y ago>suggests an individual who is pushing an agenda Well, being wealth has been increasingly concentrated in fewer people and wealth has always been on the side of fossil fuels and climate denial, would that not illustrate a plausible narrative? At the very least, those aforementioned people probably could have done something about these issues before any of us knew about them.
- geysersam 3y agoIf you think those 21 species were the only ones going extinct you're badly informed. About 200 plant and animal species go extinct every day.
- refurb 3y agoMillions of species even went extinct before modern man was ever here.
- FranzFerdiNaN 3y agoOh well then i guess it doesnt matter we destroy the earth. Fire up those coal plants and slap some more meat on the barbecue, nothing matters after all because things have happened in the past!
- refurb 3y agoHow did you that conclusion from what I said?
- _factor 3y agoThe timing and placement of your statement comes off as a challenge to the original statement. It appears you’re implying that what we’re doing today is ok because it is part of a natural process. While true, we also have agency to transcend the natural process or perpetuate it. Just because it has happened, doesn’t mean we should endorse and accelerate it. What we do determines the future.
- refurb 3y agoSo are you arguing we should prevent the extinction that would happen naturally? The extinction where man played no role? Why?
- geysersam 3y agoMaybe. If that helpes us develop better medicines or food crops it sounds like the smart thing to do. Instead of waiting around for 2 million years until eco-system has recovered. However, in my opinion, it's a rather uninteresting hypothetical because human activity absolutely does play a huge role in the extinction of species today.
- geysersam 3y agoYes but: 1. Many more species go extinct because of human activity. 2. That's a problem.
- i386 3y agoDelete your account.
- pvaldes 3y agoBut we will not realize it until 2073. This 21 are species that went extinct between 1960's and 1980's. My money would be into the molluscs lost as collateral damages by the effects of the Saint Lawrence Seaway, and the birds by a combination of touristic development plus Mikonia tree invasion starting on 60's and 70's.
- 3seashells 3y agoBot: claim of role, rank relevant to the discussion + I agree with you butt (missing) + counter claim or talking points. "it's just a series of ever warmer summers, nothing to see here" style suggests oil industry? Regarding extinction, my suggestion is biome transplants. Take a endangered biome slice and transplant it where the temperatures and conditions for the biome will reemerge post climate change stabilization, preferably in an area where humanity has no economic interest.
- PBnFlash 3y agoTransplanting hundreds of species around the world in viable groups is probably a bad idea too.
- pvaldes 3y agonot so ludicrous. Some species are more important than the other. In terms of biomedicine, the lack of a single species having evolved a unique substance could change the human history. Without knowing the list, we can't infer a lot about the impact or lack of impact. Some of those species could be obscure hybrids without real impact, the lack of other could be potentially catastrophic; but the effects would have been forgotten by now and assimilated as "the new normality". This is a glimpse of 1950's.
- da39a3ee 3y agoYou missed the bit where the person you're replying to said they knew something about the field. The loss of some species in a genus of Hawaiian honeycreepers is not tragic because of the potential for making medicines out of honeycreepers.
- RGamma 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
- rollcat 3y agoI find your take quite odd, considering your background. Biodiversity is not a hit points bar that knocks out your player character when it falls below a certain level. You remove a single keystone species and the whole local ecosystem collapses, creating a butterfly effect of disasters.
- roughly 3y agoYes, you’re right, I’m pushing an agenda. That agenda is this: rendering species extinct is bad.
- depr 3y ago>suggests an individual who is pushing an agenda >rationally appraising the current state both are an agenda. You can't escape ideology.
- william_T 3y agoThis is a lot closer to my thought as well. No one is saying extinction is beneficial. However, in the grand scheme of things, how critical was the unique Catfish that was only found in 1 river in Ohio? How many species have come and gone completely undetected? Now that a species near the top of the food chain is missing, what species can grow and change to fill the gap? Isn't that evolution, you respond to a change in your environment.
- seanmcdirmid 3y agoBiodiversity is decreasing at a rapid clip. Yes, biomass will remain constant, but increased homogeny has its own risks.