3 ms·

There needs to be a term for the cognitive fallacy that, just because two endeavors are conceptually adjacent in your mind, that puts them in competition for re

There needs to be a term for the cognitive fallacy that, just because two endeavors are conceptually adjacent in your mind, that puts them in competition for resources in any real way. That isn't how it works. Conserving megafauna and de-extincting the mammoth aren't competing with each other except in the very general sense that both are in competition with every other endeavour which is not explicitly engaged in profit seeking. But if you were to say "I'm unconvinced the value we expect to gain from preserving old computers in working condition is worth it, relative to efforts to reduce child mortality in West Africa" it would obviously be a weak argument which few would entertain. But the situation is much more like that than you make it look here.

HelloNurse 2y ago
In concrete terms, woolly mammoths don't seem likely to starve endangered Siberian animals, and if they turned out to be an ecological problem (for example, they might eat important plants to an excessive degree) they would be fairly easy to capture, move and confine. In abstract terms, there is only a small difference of degree between capturing, reproducing and dispersing rare animals to increase a small population (for example, small raptors in cities as a defense against obnoxious birds); reestablishing a recently extinct population with imports from a place where an animal isn't extinct yet (for example wolves and bears in various places in central Europe); reestablishing a less recently extinct population with artificial marvels of genetic engineering (mammoths, aurochs); introducing completely foreign animals (for example rabbits in Australia, a major bad idea from a conservation point of view); introducing artificial animals that never had a population anywhere (hopefully all fiction, but for example photosynthesis would be impactful).
Terr_ 2y ago
> There needs to be a term for the cognitive fallacy that, just because two endeavors are conceptually adjacent in your mind, that puts them in competition for resources in any real way. Perhaps: "The more roads you build, the fewer sidewalks"? On second thought, perhaps not, since they are a little too closely related.
fragmede 2y ago
False dichotomy covers that, but is perhaps too broad. When faced with people like that, I ask them what have you done to cure cancer?

HelloNurse 2y ago

In concrete terms, woolly mammoths don't seem likely to starve endangered Siberian animals, and if they turned out to be an ecological problem (for example, they might eat important plants to an excessive degree) they would be fairly easy to capture, move and confine. In abstract terms, there is only a small difference of degree between capturing, reproducing and dispersing rare animals to increase a small population (for example, small raptors in cities as a defense against obnoxious birds); reestablishing a recently extinct population with imports from a place where an animal isn't extinct yet (for example wolves and bears in various places in central Europe); reestablishing a less recently extinct population with artificial marvels of genetic engineering (mammoths, aurochs); introducing completely foreign animals (for example rabbits in Australia, a major bad idea from a conservation point of view); introducing artificial animals that never had a population anywhere (hopefully all fiction, but for example photosynthesis would be impactful).

Terr_ 2y ago

> There needs to be a term for the cognitive fallacy that, just because two endeavors are conceptually adjacent in your mind, that puts them in competition for resources in any real way. Perhaps: "The more roads you build, the fewer sidewalks"? On second thought, perhaps not, since they are a little too closely related.

fragmede 2y ago

False dichotomy covers that, but is perhaps too broad. When faced with people like that, I ask them what have you done to cure cancer?