5 ms·

Biodiversity: Life – a status report

49 points by oskarpearson 12y ago

oskarpearson 12y ago
I find this one of the most depressing articles I've read for a long time. If the upper rate values are true, we're headed for an extinction event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event on the level of the Triassic-Jurassic transition in within centuries (75% species loss) Already 41% of amphibians face extinction.
- manachar 12y ago
  The depressing part is how "invisible" this extinction rate is to most people. It's happening just slowly enough to barely register in people's memories.
  - hoggle 12y ago
    Imagine never hearing any birds chirping outside, something we had been witnessing here in Vienna - a silent but profound feeling of horror when I first realized it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usutu_virus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usutu_virus
ggreer 12y ago
I think it's important to ask two questions: 1. Is this a bad thing for humanity? 2. If it is, how can we stop it? I'm not sure the answer to 1 is, "Yes." If an organism is useful to us, we domesticate it. The rest of nature (while sometimes pretty) doesn't affect our survival, actively harms us, or is too hardy to unintentionally destroy (cyanobacteria). Nature is an extremely complex system, but let's not pretend it was a precariously-balanced eden before we came along. Most of nature is animals suffering; starving, dying of disease, or being eaten alive by others. Nature visits unnecessary suffering upon animals on a scale that we cannot imagine. When humans do the same, it's animal cruelty. I see no reason why we should try to prevent one but not the other. But let's say nature is worth preserving, at least until we understand it better. How can we preserve it? I know of no civilization that has voluntarily reduced its resource consumption. It seems the only solution is to invent our way out of the problem. That means advances in agriculture, biotech, and energy.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Of course the answer to 1 is 'YES!'. We're at or near the apex of a very large pyramid of species that in concert form the ecosystem that supports us. Without the pyramid the apex has nowhere to go except for going extinct itself. We need those 'lower' species a lot more than they need us.
  - ggreer 12y ago
    How much harm do you think would be done if a popular species of tree in the US went extinct over the course of a few decades? Do you think ecosystems would collapse? Do you think the economy would suffer? Turns out, this actually happened. 100 years ago, the American Chestnut tree accounted for 25% of all trees in north america. There used to be over 4 billion of them, then 99.9999% were killed by a blight. Today, only a few thousand exist in isolated groves. Few in the US know about this. People go hiking in the Appalachians and think, "Ah, such pristine nature." It is telling that such a profound extinction scarcely registers on any national measurement of health, quality of life, or economic prosperity. As I said, most of the species we need to survive are domesticated. And most of the others we need are so prevalent and resilient that they'd survive a nuclear apocalypse. Moreover, this problem corrects itself. If a wild species we use becomes scarce (or demand increases), people start growing it. This has happened with paper farms, aquaculture, and even truffles. When it comes to existential risks, lack of biodiversity is not worth worrying about.
    - jrkelly 12y ago
      And people are working to bring the chestnut back via genetic engineering: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/genetically-engineering-an-icon-can-biotech-bring-the-chestnut-back-to-americas-forests/276356/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/geneti... The problem with extinction is that you are throwing away a working code base that took 3 billion years to write. Every organism that goes extinct before we sequence its genome is an absolute tragedy.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      The problem is that we do not know which species are critical and which are not. You'll know it when it's too late.
exratione 12y ago
There is a tremendously conservative impulse inherent in the way people look at the natural world. The basic assumption for near all discussions is that all change is bad, the exact present situation absent the touch of humanity is good, and that the natural state is good. All of these positions should be challenged. The natural world changes constantly, even absent humanity. The natural state of predator-prey relationships is not stasis, the natural state of bacterial evolution and disease is definitely not stasis, and neither is the natural population or experience of individuals of a species in any given geographical area. Further, and more importantly, the natural world is a state of constant, terrible suffering. Everything that can suffer does. Things that would make you flinch if they happened to your pets happen to animals everywhere, constantly. Pain, death, disease. The ethical future is one in which all of that suffering is removed, and the entire natural world replaced in order to enable that removal. Where naturally evolved machines without capacity to suffer cause suffering they should be removed, replaced, or altered: plants, fungi, viruses, bacteria, other free-roaming cellular organisms. Where higher organisms suffer they should be placed into managed environments where they can be protected while living as they would in the natural world, and where that life involved inflicting pain, they can inflict it on machine simulations that cannot feel. We should not be looking to let things remain the same, or create areas where the horrors of nature continue unmolested. That is a repulsive and unethical position: requiring countless living beings capable of pain and suffering to undergo terrible experiences just because it makes you feel good. The sooner we live in a completely unnatural world, the better. But I think a culture that is fine with the mass farming of animals for food and materials is a culture that is unlikely to buy the concept of eliminating nature in order to eliminate suffering. As a species we still have a lot of growing up to do in order to reach a bare minimum state of ethics worthy of the name.
- harshreality 12y ago
  I think the problem with going fully "designed" is that the design will be very fragile, because of how poorly we can model complex systems. The wonderful thing about the ecosystem is how resilient it is to problems... species diversity and genetic diversity within a species counteracts most potential problems. No matter how much suffering is caused by the natural state of things, it's better than having a designed ecosystem with minimal suffering that breaks when some pollutant or natural event kills a link in the carefully designed chain.
Mz 12y ago
This makes me feel better about giving up my car a few years back and mostly walking everywhere. Which is to say I don't think it's completely hopeless. I think there are things we can do.

49 points by oskarpearson 12y ago

I find this one of the most depressing articles I've read for a long time. If the upper rate values are true, we're headed for an extinction event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event on the level of the Triassic-Jurassic transition in within centuries (75% species loss) Already 41% of amphibians face extinction.

manachar 12y ago
The depressing part is how "invisible" this extinction rate is to most people. It's happening just slowly enough to barely register in people's memories.
- hoggle 12y ago
  Imagine never hearing any birds chirping outside, something we had been witnessing here in Vienna - a silent but profound feeling of horror when I first realized it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usutu_virus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usutu_virus

ggreer 12y ago

I think it's important to ask two questions: 1. Is this a bad thing for humanity? 2. If it is, how can we stop it? I'm not sure the answer to 1 is, "Yes." If an organism is useful to us, we domesticate it. The rest of nature (while sometimes pretty) doesn't affect our survival, actively harms us, or is too hardy to unintentionally destroy (cyanobacteria). Nature is an extremely complex system, but let's not pretend it was a precariously-balanced eden before we came along. Most of nature is animals suffering; starving, dying of disease, or being eaten alive by others. Nature visits unnecessary suffering upon animals on a scale that we cannot imagine. When humans do the same, it's animal cruelty. I see no reason why we should try to prevent one but not the other. But let's say nature is worth preserving, at least until we understand it better. How can we preserve it? I know of no civilization that has voluntarily reduced its resource consumption. It seems the only solution is to invent our way out of the problem. That means advances in agriculture, biotech, and energy.

jacquesm 12y ago
Of course the answer to 1 is 'YES!'. We're at or near the apex of a very large pyramid of species that in concert form the ecosystem that supports us. Without the pyramid the apex has nowhere to go except for going extinct itself. We need those 'lower' species a lot more than they need us.
- ggreer 12y ago
  How much harm do you think would be done if a popular species of tree in the US went extinct over the course of a few decades? Do you think ecosystems would collapse? Do you think the economy would suffer? Turns out, this actually happened. 100 years ago, the American Chestnut tree accounted for 25% of all trees in north america. There used to be over 4 billion of them, then 99.9999% were killed by a blight. Today, only a few thousand exist in isolated groves. Few in the US know about this. People go hiking in the Appalachians and think, "Ah, such pristine nature." It is telling that such a profound extinction scarcely registers on any national measurement of health, quality of life, or economic prosperity. As I said, most of the species we need to survive are domesticated. And most of the others we need are so prevalent and resilient that they'd survive a nuclear apocalypse. Moreover, this problem corrects itself. If a wild species we use becomes scarce (or demand increases), people start growing it. This has happened with paper farms, aquaculture, and even truffles. When it comes to existential risks, lack of biodiversity is not worth worrying about.
  - jrkelly 12y ago
    And people are working to bring the chestnut back via genetic engineering: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/genetically-engineering-an-icon-can-biotech-bring-the-chestnut-back-to-americas-forests/276356/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/geneti... The problem with extinction is that you are throwing away a working code base that took 3 billion years to write. Every organism that goes extinct before we sequence its genome is an absolute tragedy.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    The problem is that we do not know which species are critical and which are not. You'll know it when it's too late.

exratione 12y ago

There is a tremendously conservative impulse inherent in the way people look at the natural world. The basic assumption for near all discussions is that all change is bad, the exact present situation absent the touch of humanity is good, and that the natural state is good. All of these positions should be challenged. The natural world changes constantly, even absent humanity. The natural state of predator-prey relationships is not stasis, the natural state of bacterial evolution and disease is definitely not stasis, and neither is the natural population or experience of individuals of a species in any given geographical area. Further, and more importantly, the natural world is a state of constant, terrible suffering. Everything that can suffer does. Things that would make you flinch if they happened to your pets happen to animals everywhere, constantly. Pain, death, disease. The ethical future is one in which all of that suffering is removed, and the entire natural world replaced in order to enable that removal. Where naturally evolved machines without capacity to suffer cause suffering they should be removed, replaced, or altered: plants, fungi, viruses, bacteria, other free-roaming cellular organisms. Where higher organisms suffer they should be placed into managed environments where they can be protected while living as they would in the natural world, and where that life involved inflicting pain, they can inflict it on machine simulations that cannot feel. We should not be looking to let things remain the same, or create areas where the horrors of nature continue unmolested. That is a repulsive and unethical position: requiring countless living beings capable of pain and suffering to undergo terrible experiences just because it makes you feel good. The sooner we live in a completely unnatural world, the better. But I think a culture that is fine with the mass farming of animals for food and materials is a culture that is unlikely to buy the concept of eliminating nature in order to eliminate suffering. As a species we still have a lot of growing up to do in order to reach a bare minimum state of ethics worthy of the name.

harshreality 12y ago
I think the problem with going fully "designed" is that the design will be very fragile, because of how poorly we can model complex systems. The wonderful thing about the ecosystem is how resilient it is to problems... species diversity and genetic diversity within a species counteracts most potential problems. No matter how much suffering is caused by the natural state of things, it's better than having a designed ecosystem with minimal suffering that breaks when some pollutant or natural event kills a link in the carefully designed chain.

Mz 12y ago

This makes me feel better about giving up my car a few years back and mostly walking everywhere. Which is to say I don't think it's completely hopeless. I think there are things we can do.

Biodiversity: Life ­– a status report

Biodiversity: Life ­– a status report

Biodiversity: Life – a status report

Biodiversity: Life – a status report