3 ms·

Not sure this is a good idea. What if the disappearance of corals at higher temps is part of a natural regulation system for Earth, where if they are artificial

Not sure this is a good idea. What if the disappearance of corals at higher temps is part of a natural regulation system for Earth, where if they are artificially preserved, homeostasis will be perturbed? In general I am against these ecosystem engineering type projects: because the systems are so complex, we do not understand them, and we cannot test in isolation.

empath75 2y ago
There is no natural regulation system for the earth, and the earth makes no attempt at homeostasis. It has been tipped over into states almost completely inhospitable for then-existing life more than once.
- carapace 2y ago
  Multicellular lifeforms are the machinery that microbes build to improve homeostasis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
  - Vecr 2y ago
    I think the theory is doubtful. Sounds too outcome oriented/group-selection-y.
    - carapace 2y ago
      Are you at all familiar with the work of Michael Levin et. al.? E.g. "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjD1aLm4Thg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjD1aLm4Thg
- keepamovin 2y ago
  There is. It's chemistry and physics, even basic reactions have equilibria. There's multilayered homeostasis mechanisms interacting around the world. It's a large part of weather. You should read up on it, it's interesting.
tejohnso 2y ago
> I am against these ecosystem engineering type projects: because the systems are so complex, we do not understand them How about humans pumping tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year? Are you against that ecosystem engineering type project? Because it's happening. And it's having severe consequences. And it seems it's not going to stop. So people are trying to look into ways to attempt to mitigate its effects and you end up with one engineering type project to mitigate another. Doing nothing isn't going to work. We know that. So a lot of people are willing to accept less than fully understood solutions.
- glenstein 2y ago
  At its essence, status quo extremism is not the denial of dangers, SQE's are quite alert to them. Instead, it's about an axiomatic re-definition of danger as being about whether or not something is presently happening. If it is already happening, then by definition it's not dangerous.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- keepamovin 2y ago
  There's a step change difference between industrial exhaust and changing the source code of a 'program' in the Earth system. We can alter our industrial practices, as they are within our control. Once a GM organism gets out, it could be like an out of control program running rampant on your servers. It's too much power to wield while we don't have the knowledge. I'm not saying we shouldn't attempt to modulate our effects on the environment, I'm saying let's not make it worse doing so. So we should be strategic in the tactics we employ.
bee_rider 2y ago
Of course there’s no engineered homeostasis to mess up on Earth. There might be a general tendency toward homeostasis: lots of, in some generalized sense “mass” and “momentum” in the system, and a tendency for species to die off by consuming all their resources and running out of places to put their byproducts. But that seems more likely to be something that humans fall afoul of, not coral, which seems more like an accidental victim and evidence that homeostasis has some pretty big gaps.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  I think you need a larger picture - think system theory, and think about multiple overlapping equilibrium biochemical reactions going on all the time. Even in your own body to maintain homeostasis. That's scaled up on a global scale. How key are coral? Do you know? If you don't you probably shouldn't mess with it. Heh! :)
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    They are already being messed with, we’re killing them.
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      Exactly. But interfering might actually make it worse.

empath75 2y ago

There is no natural regulation system for the earth, and the earth makes no attempt at homeostasis. It has been tipped over into states almost completely inhospitable for then-existing life more than once.

carapace 2y ago
Multicellular lifeforms are the machinery that microbes build to improve homeostasis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
- Vecr 2y ago
  I think the theory is doubtful. Sounds too outcome oriented/group-selection-y.
  - carapace 2y ago
    Are you at all familiar with the work of Michael Levin et. al.? E.g. "What Bodies Think About: Bioelectric Computation Outside the Nervous System" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjD1aLm4Thg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjD1aLm4Thg
keepamovin 2y ago
There is. It's chemistry and physics, even basic reactions have equilibria. There's multilayered homeostasis mechanisms interacting around the world. It's a large part of weather. You should read up on it, it's interesting.

tejohnso 2y ago

> I am against these ecosystem engineering type projects: because the systems are so complex, we do not understand them How about humans pumping tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year? Are you against that ecosystem engineering type project? Because it's happening. And it's having severe consequences. And it seems it's not going to stop. So people are trying to look into ways to attempt to mitigate its effects and you end up with one engineering type project to mitigate another. Doing nothing isn't going to work. We know that. So a lot of people are willing to accept less than fully understood solutions.

glenstein 2y ago
At its essence, status quo extremism is not the denial of dangers, SQE's are quite alert to them. Instead, it's about an axiomatic re-definition of danger as being about whether or not something is presently happening. If it is already happening, then by definition it's not dangerous.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
keepamovin 2y ago
There's a step change difference between industrial exhaust and changing the source code of a 'program' in the Earth system. We can alter our industrial practices, as they are within our control. Once a GM organism gets out, it could be like an out of control program running rampant on your servers. It's too much power to wield while we don't have the knowledge. I'm not saying we shouldn't attempt to modulate our effects on the environment, I'm saying let's not make it worse doing so. So we should be strategic in the tactics we employ.

bee_rider 2y ago

Of course there’s no engineered homeostasis to mess up on Earth. There might be a general tendency toward homeostasis: lots of, in some generalized sense “mass” and “momentum” in the system, and a tendency for species to die off by consuming all their resources and running out of places to put their byproducts. But that seems more likely to be something that humans fall afoul of, not coral, which seems more like an accidental victim and evidence that homeostasis has some pretty big gaps.

keepamovin 2y ago
I think you need a larger picture - think system theory, and think about multiple overlapping equilibrium biochemical reactions going on all the time. Even in your own body to maintain homeostasis. That's scaled up on a global scale. How key are coral? Do you know? If you don't you probably shouldn't mess with it. Heh! :)
- bee_rider 2y ago
  They are already being messed with, we’re killing them.
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    Exactly. But interfering might actually make it worse.