6 ms·

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

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.
- stavros 3y ago
  No, 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      The 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.
        autoexec 3y ago
        > Other individual forms of life don't "evolve". Of course they do. Populations can evolve with successive generations without ever killing off large numbers of creatures. They simply do it slowly as conditions change and those with certain genes become advantaged over others and become more common. It's the "passing their genes to the next generation" which becomes a huge problem when everyone in the current generation dies or any creature that is born dies before it can reproduce. > There have been a number of significant extinction events that happened in the past that were much faster than whatever humans are doing now. But not faster than what we're capable of doing if we start geoengineering and it all goes wrong. The dinosaur killing meteor took a long time to kill off everything that it did (on a human timescale). How long exactly is uncertain but likely thousands of years to tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Time enough for a whole lot of generations. We might not have that long if we poison our atmosphere, destroy the ozone layer, or kill everything in the oceans.
lynx23 3y ago
Do "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 ago
  It'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 ago
    You 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 ago
Well I love the cyanobacteria because we wouldn't be here otherwise..
HPsquared 3y ago
GP'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 ago
    Nature 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 ago
Aside 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.

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.

stavros 3y ago
No, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    The 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.
      - autoexec 3y ago
        > Other individual forms of life don't "evolve". Of course they do. Populations can evolve with successive generations without ever killing off large numbers of creatures. They simply do it slowly as conditions change and those with certain genes become advantaged over others and become more common. It's the "passing their genes to the next generation" which becomes a huge problem when everyone in the current generation dies or any creature that is born dies before it can reproduce. > There have been a number of significant extinction events that happened in the past that were much faster than whatever humans are doing now. But not faster than what we're capable of doing if we start geoengineering and it all goes wrong. The dinosaur killing meteor took a long time to kill off everything that it did (on a human timescale). How long exactly is uncertain but likely thousands of years to tens if not hundreds of thousands of years. Time enough for a whole lot of generations. We might not have that long if we poison our atmosphere, destroy the ozone layer, or kill everything in the oceans.

lynx23 3y ago

Do "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 ago
It'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 ago
  You 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 ago

Well I love the cyanobacteria because we wouldn't be here otherwise..

HPsquared 3y ago

GP'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 ago
  Nature 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 ago

Aside 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.