3 ms·

> I assume you’ve never studied biology? I assume you've never studied statistics? Or shouldn't you know that correlation does not equal causation? See, I ca

> I assume you’ve never studied biology? I assume you've never studied statistics? Or shouldn't you know that correlation does not equal causation? See, I can make unfounded assumptions too. > Or maybe you wouldn’t care if humans go extinct? You are full of assumptions, aren't you? It's just amazing how people think we are so powerful and can affect nature to such an extent. But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. But if the elephant seems to be tripping and there's an ant near his foot, it must be the ant's fault...

anon1385 11y ago
Why do you think small things can't have large effects? I expect you were asked about your knowledge of biology (although it could have been pretty much any other science) because small things have large effects all the time and even a basic knowledge of any of those fields would provide you with plenty of examples of small things having large effects. It's quite bizarre to see somebody accusing others of logical fallacies while making such a basic logical error.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"? It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
  - anon1385 11y ago
    >Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere. >What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention. Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      > Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth again. The point is that mass extinctions have happened multiple times without any human intervention. I call troll.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. Cod stocks collapsed because of over fishing. They recovered when we stopped fishing. Buffalo went near extinct when we killed most of them. The passenger pigeon went extinct when we killed all of them. Dodos went extinct because we killed all of them. These are all clear and direct examples. What you're doing is dishonest - "show me something unclear and with complex causes as an example of human destruction, and then when you do I'll quibble with the small areas of doubt provided in your example even though most of science agree the cause was human".
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      I'm not being dishonest. Sure, humans have caused or nearly caused a few species to become extinct in certain places. That is a far cry from causing mass extinction on a global scale. We have also protected and repopulated some nearly extinct species. Equating the two--that's dishonest at worst, and a difference in judgment at best. Like I said, it's a question of judgment. What is definitely dishonest is to claim that all sea life will die in ten years, leaving the shores covered with dead fish; or claim that the entire UK will starve to death; and then, when proven wrong by reality, say, "Well, they're having problems, aren't they? See? I wasn't really wrong." And with such a track record, it seems ridiculous for anyone to believe him when he claims we are now causing mass extinctions on a global scale. How can you take him seriously?
ryanp0 11y ago
> But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. I think this is the wrong way to look at this. It's not about "are we powerful enough" or "are we big enough" it's not about size or power. Even very small insignificant things can and do have quite a large impact. It's more about impacting a system in a way it's ill equipped to compensate for. One of the more recent theories of the cause of the worst extinction level event is a particular methane producing microbe. Something far less powerful than a human is, yet a potential cause of an extinction level event that dwarfed the one that killed off the dinosaurs.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  Frankly, I think the earth's ecosystems are incredibly robust and able to compensate for more than we can imagine. Regarding the "farting bacteria" theory (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist), hey, who knows, maybe that happened. But it's surely a stretch to say that it probably did. And even if it did, look at the incredible biodiversity that came to exist afterward! Why are we (or some people) so worried?
  - ryanp0 11y ago
    The animals that don't survive mass extinction events don't benefit from the subsequent biodiversity, that's why. I'm not of the opinion that we're facing such a dire situation as alarmists like the guy that wrote this are suggesting, but simply pointing out that it simply doesn't matter that some species will survive or that even humans will survive if the vast majority don't. "Sure, most humans will die, but just imagine how great all the biodiversity will be after a few million years! Won't that be great!" Maybe some crazy Peta people would think that, but otherwise I think biodiversity is hardly a compelling argument for people that starve as a result of any changes to the planet. Obviously life would survive just about damn near anything, and has in the past, but at what cost, and in what form? The questions aren't "are humans capable of damaging the earth to the point that threatens humans ability to survive on earth" because that's definitely a yes. It's more of a question of whether we are already or not. If we purposely wanted to destroy the earth we could, for example global thermonuclear war, engineered plagues, etc. We could absolutely make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, no question there. So the whole "are we big enough" simply doesn't make sense.

anon1385 11y ago

Why do you think small things can't have large effects? I expect you were asked about your knowledge of biology (although it could have been pretty much any other science) because small things have large effects all the time and even a basic knowledge of any of those fields would provide you with plenty of examples of small things having large effects. It's quite bizarre to see somebody accusing others of logical fallacies while making such a basic logical error.

alphapapa 11y ago
What do you mean by small things? Is a butterfly a small thing? Is a billion butterflies also a "small thing"? It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. There is a fallacy, though: that of confusing correlation for causation. What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention.
- anon1385 11y ago
  >Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Yes. We have answer that pretty conclusively. Humans are capable of and have carried out global scale changes to the biosphere. >What is indeed bizarre is to see people accusing humans of causing mass events that have happened for millions of years without human intervention. Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. Just because something can happen without human intervention doesn't mean humans can't cause it. Trees can fall in the wind, but you would have to be a rather special person to argue that because trees can fall in the wind that it's impossible for a human to cut down a tree (humans being so much smaller than trees).
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    > Mass extinction events have not been happening continuously for millions of years. Perhaps that is the cause of your confusion. I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth again. The point is that mass extinctions have happened multiple times without any human intervention. I call troll.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > It's not a question of fallacy--it's a question of judgment. Are humans "big enough" to have such a big effect on nature as a whole? This is the question that we have yet to answer for certain. Many people assume that we are more powerful than we have proven to be. Cod stocks collapsed because of over fishing. They recovered when we stopped fishing. Buffalo went near extinct when we killed most of them. The passenger pigeon went extinct when we killed all of them. Dodos went extinct because we killed all of them. These are all clear and direct examples. What you're doing is dishonest - "show me something unclear and with complex causes as an example of human destruction, and then when you do I'll quibble with the small areas of doubt provided in your example even though most of science agree the cause was human".
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    I'm not being dishonest. Sure, humans have caused or nearly caused a few species to become extinct in certain places. That is a far cry from causing mass extinction on a global scale. We have also protected and repopulated some nearly extinct species. Equating the two--that's dishonest at worst, and a difference in judgment at best. Like I said, it's a question of judgment. What is definitely dishonest is to claim that all sea life will die in ten years, leaving the shores covered with dead fish; or claim that the entire UK will starve to death; and then, when proven wrong by reality, say, "Well, they're having problems, aren't they? See? I wasn't really wrong." And with such a track record, it seems ridiculous for anyone to believe him when he claims we are now causing mass extinctions on a global scale. How can you take him seriously?

ryanp0 11y ago

> But it's like an ant trying to trip an elephant. I think this is the wrong way to look at this. It's not about "are we powerful enough" or "are we big enough" it's not about size or power. Even very small insignificant things can and do have quite a large impact. It's more about impacting a system in a way it's ill equipped to compensate for. One of the more recent theories of the cause of the worst extinction level event is a particular methane producing microbe. Something far less powerful than a human is, yet a potential cause of an extinction level event that dwarfed the one that killed off the dinosaurs.

alphapapa 11y ago
Frankly, I think the earth's ecosystems are incredibly robust and able to compensate for more than we can imagine. Regarding the "farting bacteria" theory (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist), hey, who knows, maybe that happened. But it's surely a stretch to say that it probably did. And even if it did, look at the incredible biodiversity that came to exist afterward! Why are we (or some people) so worried?
- ryanp0 11y ago
  The animals that don't survive mass extinction events don't benefit from the subsequent biodiversity, that's why. I'm not of the opinion that we're facing such a dire situation as alarmists like the guy that wrote this are suggesting, but simply pointing out that it simply doesn't matter that some species will survive or that even humans will survive if the vast majority don't. "Sure, most humans will die, but just imagine how great all the biodiversity will be after a few million years! Won't that be great!" Maybe some crazy Peta people would think that, but otherwise I think biodiversity is hardly a compelling argument for people that starve as a result of any changes to the planet. Obviously life would survive just about damn near anything, and has in the past, but at what cost, and in what form? The questions aren't "are humans capable of damaging the earth to the point that threatens humans ability to survive on earth" because that's definitely a yes. It's more of a question of whether we are already or not. If we purposely wanted to destroy the earth we could, for example global thermonuclear war, engineered plagues, etc. We could absolutely make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves, no question there. So the whole "are we big enough" simply doesn't make sense.