3 ms·
Let me replace the issue in its context. In the article it is written that the current extinction is the only one that is due to a singular species. I do beli
by grondilu 12y ago
Let me replace the issue in its context. In the article it is written that the current extinction is the only one that is due to a singular species. I do believe this is pretty much wrong considering how likely it is that the biggest paleontological extinction event was due to an archaean genus (not a species, but pretty damn close).
If someone states that 2+2 = 5, should I shut up and not state that 2+2 = 4 in case some people give this fact some bad moral interpretation?
- DodgyEggplant 12y agoI would suggest a different context. If someone states that 2+2 = 5, and at the same time he/she states that somebody is bleeding to death nearby, now - than the 2+2=5 is the less important statement, if at all. But the real issue is that it's far from 2+2=5. Consuming the biosphere is not gas release. It is a moral choice that individuals, communities and nations can change daily.
- grondilu 12y ago> Consuming the biosphere is not gas release. It is a moral choice that individuals, communities and nations can change daily. They can, but they don't. I don't understand your point. The choice you're talking about is being made. It's not because you don't like it that it doesn't exist. In any case what matters is what is actually done, not what could be done in an ideal world. So to me the impact of methanosarcina on the environment is indeed comparable to the impact of Homo sapiens, in the sense that both are extinctions induced by biotic agents.