9 ms·

A reminder to humans who want to undertake ecosystem engineering projects: we don't know what we're doing.

salesynerd 3y ago
Very true. I guess the challenge is to balance, if it's at all possible, the needs of humans and/or other species with that of the overall ecosystem. For example, in India there is a massive program underway to connect the various rivers across the country to alleviate drinking water shortages and increase the use of inland waterways for transportation. However, the net ecological impact of the program is not known. I doubt it is possible to really calculate, in advance, the impact of such programs.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  Exactly! Caution is required because the ecosystem is not modelable from our current understanding :)
titzer 3y ago
Indeed. Our intentional ecosystem engineering is probably dwarfed by our unintentional transportation of invasive species and infectious diseases, going back centuries. And about zero of that seems to have led to a net increase in biodiversity--in short, we're stumbling about spreading destruction whereever we go.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
We don't, and I don't bring up the following to excuse humanity for our destruction of other species, but it's still just an interesting philosophical point to consider. We're as much a part of the circle of life and evolution as all the organisms that came before us. I mean, you think we're bad for other species, just think about cyanobacteria, which in their thirst for energy polluted the atmosphere with an extremely toxic gas that caused one of Earth's major extinction events. Of course, that gas was molecular oxygen, and eventually other organisms evolved aerobic respiration, and that toxic gas is now required by many of Earth's organisms to survive. Now, that change took a billion years or so, as opposed to humans doubling CO2 concentrations in a couple hundred years, but it's still interesting to think about the crazy history of life on Earth.
- techas 3y ago
  I completely agree with you. We can mess it up, but at geological time scale, life will regenerate. Evolution is very robust. Although, we live at human timescale. It will be a pity for our sons and daughters…
  - WillAdams 3y ago
    My grandfather lived in a time when commercial hunting was outlawed --- I worry that my children will live in a time when commercial fishing is outlawed.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  That we are part of some circle of whatever does not make the consequences of our actions, and therefore our actions, any better. The cyanobacteria were bad; we have more of a choice. Also, if we release gasses that kill and impoverish large portions of us, it won't help that it's 'natural'; it will make no difference at all.
  - frutiger 3y ago
    > The cyanobacteria were bad By which scales of justice?
    - Ringz 3y ago
      Based on the scale of comparison between different living beings and their effects on other living beings.
      - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        I got news for you regarding every organism that kills organisms to eat.
  - freedomben 3y ago
    GP clearly mentioned in their first paragraph that they aren't defending it by pointing out that it is natural. Assuming that they are is committing the is/ought fallacy.
akira2501 3y ago
We know perfectly well what we are doing. We are just in a system that tends to be dominated by emergent behavior. So.. we just can't predict the outcomes with any level of accuracy.
- Intralexical 3y ago
  "Emergent behavior" is just a fancy term for "too complicated for us to understand". Things you consider obvious would be considered "emergent" to somebody a bit dumber than you, and things you consider "emergent" would be considered obvious to somebody a bit smarter than you.
  - npteljes 3y ago
    Not really. Emergent behavior is when the system's behavioral patterns are seemingly disconnected, not obviously derived from the fundamental rules. Emergent behavior is on a different "level" than the originally described actions and participants. Emergent behavior is crowd behavior vs individual psychology, biology and physics to chemistry. I agree on the part that these "levels" are not actually separated. It's just how us humans happen to think about things - one could say, it's an emergent behavior in itself that comes from how humans form abstract thought. But nevertheless emergence is a useful concept. And I also agree that we don't know what the fuck is going on. To be honest, I think that we can't know, that no human being ever can achieve complete understanding. And thus, we cannot really say that we're going to do something, and this and this will happen. We don't actually know, but we do manage.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    It's a specific term with specific understanding, which you are attempting to redefine to fit your argument. This does not have anything to do with the intelligence of the beholder. For example, writing software, you can have two working parts of the system, that when operating in concert, produce incorrect results. It may be that you just failed to predict the invariant, or you misunderstood the timing, or changed some other small thing. In almost all cases, you can work backwards to discover the source of the behavior. This is what a "case study" is, and they're quite popular on this site. The danger with your mentality, I feel, is that telling someone "you don't know what you're doing" is very unlikely to alter their behavior. It's entirely ignorant of human nature. It's much more useful to explain to them why you believe they will fail in terms that don't belittle their intelligence. Sure, it's less of an edge for you to sharpen your wit against, but considering the subject matter, is this really the appropriate subject for scoring your own points?
SoftTalker 3y ago
Nature doesn't know what she is doing either. It's a system that evolved based on random events that were beneficial for some species and bad for others.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  That's an interesting perspective. Worthy of more thought that can be reasonably alotted in reply to an internet comment. Thank you for your contribution! :)

Very true. I guess the challenge is to balance, if it's at all possible, the needs of humans and/or other species with that of the overall ecosystem. For example, in India there is a massive program underway to connect the various rivers across the country to alleviate drinking water shortages and increase the use of inland waterways for transportation. However, the net ecological impact of the program is not known. I doubt it is possible to really calculate, in advance, the impact of such programs.

keepamovin 3y ago
Exactly! Caution is required because the ecosystem is not modelable from our current understanding :)

titzer 3y ago

Indeed. Our intentional ecosystem engineering is probably dwarfed by our unintentional transportation of invasive species and infectious diseases, going back centuries. And about zero of that seems to have led to a net increase in biodiversity--in short, we're stumbling about spreading destruction whereever we go.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

We don't, and I don't bring up the following to excuse humanity for our destruction of other species, but it's still just an interesting philosophical point to consider. We're as much a part of the circle of life and evolution as all the organisms that came before us. I mean, you think we're bad for other species, just think about cyanobacteria, which in their thirst for energy polluted the atmosphere with an extremely toxic gas that caused one of Earth's major extinction events. Of course, that gas was molecular oxygen, and eventually other organisms evolved aerobic respiration, and that toxic gas is now required by many of Earth's organisms to survive. Now, that change took a billion years or so, as opposed to humans doubling CO2 concentrations in a couple hundred years, but it's still interesting to think about the crazy history of life on Earth.

techas 3y ago
I completely agree with you. We can mess it up, but at geological time scale, life will regenerate. Evolution is very robust. Although, we live at human timescale. It will be a pity for our sons and daughters…
- WillAdams 3y ago
  My grandfather lived in a time when commercial hunting was outlawed --- I worry that my children will live in a time when commercial fishing is outlawed.
wolverine876 3y ago
That we are part of some circle of whatever does not make the consequences of our actions, and therefore our actions, any better. The cyanobacteria were bad; we have more of a choice. Also, if we release gasses that kill and impoverish large portions of us, it won't help that it's 'natural'; it will make no difference at all.
- frutiger 3y ago
  > The cyanobacteria were bad By which scales of justice?
  - Ringz 3y ago
    Based on the scale of comparison between different living beings and their effects on other living beings.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      I got news for you regarding every organism that kills organisms to eat.
- freedomben 3y ago
  GP clearly mentioned in their first paragraph that they aren't defending it by pointing out that it is natural. Assuming that they are is committing the is/ought fallacy.

akira2501 3y ago

We know perfectly well what we are doing. We are just in a system that tends to be dominated by emergent behavior. So.. we just can't predict the outcomes with any level of accuracy.

Intralexical 3y ago
"Emergent behavior" is just a fancy term for "too complicated for us to understand". Things you consider obvious would be considered "emergent" to somebody a bit dumber than you, and things you consider "emergent" would be considered obvious to somebody a bit smarter than you.
- npteljes 3y ago
  Not really. Emergent behavior is when the system's behavioral patterns are seemingly disconnected, not obviously derived from the fundamental rules. Emergent behavior is on a different "level" than the originally described actions and participants. Emergent behavior is crowd behavior vs individual psychology, biology and physics to chemistry. I agree on the part that these "levels" are not actually separated. It's just how us humans happen to think about things - one could say, it's an emergent behavior in itself that comes from how humans form abstract thought. But nevertheless emergence is a useful concept. And I also agree that we don't know what the fuck is going on. To be honest, I think that we can't know, that no human being ever can achieve complete understanding. And thus, we cannot really say that we're going to do something, and this and this will happen. We don't actually know, but we do manage.
- akira2501 3y ago
  It's a specific term with specific understanding, which you are attempting to redefine to fit your argument. This does not have anything to do with the intelligence of the beholder. For example, writing software, you can have two working parts of the system, that when operating in concert, produce incorrect results. It may be that you just failed to predict the invariant, or you misunderstood the timing, or changed some other small thing. In almost all cases, you can work backwards to discover the source of the behavior. This is what a "case study" is, and they're quite popular on this site. The danger with your mentality, I feel, is that telling someone "you don't know what you're doing" is very unlikely to alter their behavior. It's entirely ignorant of human nature. It's much more useful to explain to them why you believe they will fail in terms that don't belittle their intelligence. Sure, it's less of an edge for you to sharpen your wit against, but considering the subject matter, is this really the appropriate subject for scoring your own points?

SoftTalker 3y ago

Nature doesn't know what she is doing either. It's a system that evolved based on random events that were beneficial for some species and bad for others.

keepamovin 3y ago
That's an interesting perspective. Worthy of more thought that can be reasonably alotted in reply to an internet comment. Thank you for your contribution! :)