3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoMy 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 agoThat 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 agoBased on the scale of comparison between different living beings and their effects on other living beings.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoI got news for you regarding every organism that kills organisms to eat.
- freedomben 3y agoGP 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.
- stavros 3y agoNo, but they said it's an interesting philosophical point to consider, because some bacteria did more damage than us. This isn't true (it's not an interesting point), because we're arguably the only species that know we're causing damage, and can choose not to do it.
- zztop44 3y agoI think it’s an interesting philosophical point to consider. In fact, I remember finding researching and writing a paper on this general question fascinating as a philosophy undergrad.
- jamincan 3y agoI don't think that's the interesting philosophical point. The interesting part is that out of such a devastating event emerged a much more diverse ecosystem that couldn't have existed otherwise.
- autoexec 3y agoThe timescale is important though. It happened slowly enough that other forms of life could evolve and thrive. We're changing things and killing off species too quickly for evolution. If we screw up geoengineering it could be so fast that we wipe out everything (including ourselves). Maybe some extremophiles will survive at least.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago> It happened slowly enough that other forms of life could evolve and thrive. We're changing things and killing off species too quickly for evolution. That is quite definitely not how evolution works: 1. Other individual forms of life don't "evolve". Evolution only works by killing off large numbers of creatures, and only ones that have genes that differ by chance, and are more fit in whatever the new environment is, exist to pass their genes to the next generation. 2. There have been a number of significant extinction events that happened in the past that were much faster than whatever humans are doing now. I'm pretty sure the meteor that wiped out the non-avian dinosaurs happened pretty quickly.
- lynx23 3y agoDo "we" really have a choice? As individuals, granted. But as a species, there is no mechanism to actually arrive at a decision which would result in a particular choice being made.
- wolverine876 3y ago> as a species, there is no mechanism to actually arrive at a decision which would result in a particular choice being made. We make choices like that regularly, in fact. We're a social species and organize ourselves, make rules, make large scale decisions through government. People love to indulge this odd fantasy of powerlessness - it's very convenient for those who want to make the decisions for everyone else.
- b112 3y agoIt's OK, for species wide compliance we have war. * We can go to general, world wide conventional war. Just the amount of oil and environmental damage spent, producing machines (eg, airplanes, tanks, missiles, ships) would be astronomical * Nuclear war would likely break out at some point, when someone is backed into a corner * Biological warfare will likely be a component of any large scale future war. Naturally, mistakes will be made, and one favourite is destroying an enemy's food supplies. So imagine crops or food animals targeted by disease, and it spreads to other lifeforms My point is, I have been wondering that when things get very very visibly bad, when no one can rationalize away what is happening, when everything is falling apart due to global migration, land loss, loss of crop land, etc etc... Will war then occur, with "pro environmental" nations working to prevent environmental damage of others? And then, of course, causing waaay more damage due to the war? Because, well, humans.
- wolverine876 3y agoYou should write some dystopian books. You can see that, through democratic governance, we have managed many problems and crises. The problem is when people undermine democracy - either to grab power, or to act out on frustration and hopelessness. Nothing is stopping us from solving these problems, except hopelessness.
- Rapzid 3y agoWell I love the cyanobacteria because we wouldn't be here otherwise..
- HPsquared 3y agoGP's point was that cyanobacteria were NOT "bad". They're a part of nature, how can that be bad? Good and bad are strictly human constructs, relating to human (primarily social) behaviour.
- wolverine876 3y ago> They're a part of nature, how can that be bad? How does that makes sense? Is nature necessarily good? Above moral judgment? It's an excuse used by lots of people to do and allow lots of bad things.
- HPsquared 3y agoNature itself can be neither good nor bad. Is a black hole good or bad? Is DNA good or bad? Impossible to judge. It is what it is.
- The_Colonel 3y agoAside from the absurdity of morally judging bacteria, they were arguably good. While they genocided existing (almost exclusively single cell) organisms, by producing oxygen, they prepared conditions for orders of magnitude richer and more complex life than was possible before.
- Rapzid 3y agoWe aren't the only species to cause the extinction of other species. We are the only species that cares.
- lukan 3y agoAnd we have technology enabling us to cause much more extinction. That is the difference.