3 ms·

There is no hope, to be honest. I think we should start taking bets on total taxonomic loss for this extinction event. I think we can beat the Triassic at 83 %

There is no hope, to be honest. I think we should start taking bets on total taxonomic loss for this extinction event. I think we can beat the Triassic at 83 %. Go humans!

scottLobster 3y ago
Don't worry, once we get a little better at genetic engineering we'll be able to reintroduce species with the genetic diversity required to prevent inbreeding. Then in a fever pitch of environmentalism we'll start restoring extinct species Jurassic Park style, and end up ironically destroying ecosystems that have adapted to the absence of their former inhabitants, while crooning on about how we're saving the planet and erasing humanity's orignial sin of eating all the DoDos! Because all those hungry sailors were part of colonialism anyway and should have known to starve themselves! Humanity! Intelligent enough to land on the moon, primitive enough to be wracked with guilt over other animals dying, but only the cute or beneficial ones.
- tetris11 3y ago
  how does one make up for the sins of the boast though. Sure, there were a few hungry sailors... but a lot of people just liked hunting for sport too.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > with the genetic diversity required to prevent inbreeding Inbreeding isn't bad, per se. I don't have the reference now, but it has been shown that small populations can (not guaranteed) facilitate species survival by weeding out deleterious mutations. A sub-population founded from a small population is typically more robust than a sub-population of the same size founded from a large population, as the deleterious mutations have been weeded out. The diversity that's really important for long-term population survival is immune system diversity. So basically, for species threatened with extinction, it would be more important to remove deleterious mutations than to increase genetic diversity. And possibly also raise the new generation separate, in case the species act like humans and are less likely to mate with those they've grown up with. > Because all those hungry sailors were part of colonialism anyway and should have known to starve themselves! They were in no danger of starvation. They hunted dodos and dodo eggs because it was easy to do so. > primitive enough to be wracked with guilt over other animals dying, but only the cute or beneficial ones. It's part of the same impulse that encourages us to take care of children, even those children not related to us. And plenty of people feel it for the non-cute animals as well.

There is no hope, to be honest. I think we should start taking bets on total taxonomic loss for this extinction event. I think we can beat the Triassic at 83 %. Go humans!

scottLobster 3y ago

Don't worry, once we get a little better at genetic engineering we'll be able to reintroduce species with the genetic diversity required to prevent inbreeding. Then in a fever pitch of environmentalism we'll start restoring extinct species Jurassic Park style, and end up ironically destroying ecosystems that have adapted to the absence of their former inhabitants, while crooning on about how we're saving the planet and erasing humanity's orignial sin of eating all the DoDos! Because all those hungry sailors were part of colonialism anyway and should have known to starve themselves! Humanity! Intelligent enough to land on the moon, primitive enough to be wracked with guilt over other animals dying, but only the cute or beneficial ones.

tetris11 3y ago
how does one make up for the sins of the boast though. Sure, there were a few hungry sailors... but a lot of people just liked hunting for sport too.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> with the genetic diversity required to prevent inbreeding Inbreeding isn't bad, per se. I don't have the reference now, but it has been shown that small populations can (not guaranteed) facilitate species survival by weeding out deleterious mutations. A sub-population founded from a small population is typically more robust than a sub-population of the same size founded from a large population, as the deleterious mutations have been weeded out. The diversity that's really important for long-term population survival is immune system diversity. So basically, for species threatened with extinction, it would be more important to remove deleterious mutations than to increase genetic diversity. And possibly also raise the new generation separate, in case the species act like humans and are less likely to mate with those they've grown up with. > Because all those hungry sailors were part of colonialism anyway and should have known to starve themselves! They were in no danger of starvation. They hunted dodos and dodo eggs because it was easy to do so. > primitive enough to be wracked with guilt over other animals dying, but only the cute or beneficial ones. It's part of the same impulse that encourages us to take care of children, even those children not related to us. And plenty of people feel it for the non-cute animals as well.