If this barrier were removed without a suitable alternative means of regulation, the consequences could be catastrophic.
I agree with you that we should be smart about how we alter evolution.
You're asserting that mosquitos, possibly carrying disease, hold back logging operations significantly to the point where if the mosquitos didn't exist there would be logging that would create a "catastrophic" event.
I'm not convinced we even have enough resources at or near the ready to cause a "catastrophic" event in relation to logging even if we wanted to. Rain forests are extremely dangerous as it is, surely there are far, far better places to log?
Asking a barrage of innuendo laden questions to create doubt is not an argument.
It is not my responsibility to track down and disprove all claims made on the internet. When you make a claim you must back it up otherwise why make the claim at all?
Why did you make these claims without backing them up?
Regardless the rainforest being dangerous is actually a really common theme (I know I learned about it in primary school).
Tips for tourists: http://traveltips.usatoday.com/dangers-amazon-rainforest-116...
Surviving the Jungle: http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/jungl...
Poisonous plants of the jungle: http://www.ehow.com/list_6698309_poisonous-plants-amazon.htm...
I mean if this is how petty you want to go I can pull up thousands of links; the rainforest can be a pretty scary place and there are countless things in it that can kill you.
Regardless dangerous isn't tied to a specific set of dangers. That's simply not what the word means. I gave a set of links, mentioned I could send you many, many more, and you cherry-pick a topic I didn't post...for what purpose?
I'll admit I'm not used to being trolled on HN but this is just ridiculous. If you want to just post random garbage without providing a way of backing up claims (extreme claims nonetheless) then go to reddit.
It seems you're upset about something I said that you disagree with and are using hostility instead of reason.
> It seems you're upset about something I said that you disagree with and are using hostility instead of reason.
You made a statement that was extreme and never supplied a source. At this point you're just trying to troll and branch the argument down paths that are unrelated. Just go back to reddit.
If you want to have a real, intellectual discussion about topics you yourself brought up then you need to provide source. Trying to find irrelevant faults just make you look like a troll.
Have fun arguing with yourself.
Humans depend on the biosphere for survival.
I agree that protecting babies from brain damage is very important, but certainly not at any cost.
An undertaking so MASSIVE to "kill all the trees" is absolutely hyperbolic nonsense. The parent never suggested that. At worst, if your claims above are true, more logging may occur. This is a far, far, far, far cry from killing all the trees (even when limiting the context to the rainforest).
When you're arguing with someone don't derive meaning from someone's rebuttal that doesn't exist in order to help your position; it makes it appear that you only want to deal with extremes without evidence which paints your views in a nonrealistic way.
The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy. Seems like you don't have a problem with 'extremes' of meaning that don't exist when they support your position.
While I thought the parent's comment was in snark / sarcastic it was still contextual and not as extreme (it was regarding the issue you brought up).
As for me? What did I say that was hyperbolic?
> The rebuttal was all about sacrificing trees to prevent brain damage to babies which is a false dichotomy.
Yes what krschultz wrote was a false dichotomy. Sarcasm tends to be just that. Though you, on the other hand, took his / her comments to an extreme that didn't make sense because of exactly what I said: you creative a narrative that didn't exist out of someone else's comment only to be hyperbolic to try and bolster your position.
"Not sure I agree with protecting the trees over preventing brain damage in babies" - krschultz
"If you kill all the trees[...]" - zepto (in reply to krschultz)
Do you understand now? Surely you can see the ridiculousness of your response to krschultz, regardless of his / her own snark / saracasm, right?
If it's sarcasm, then it doesn't stand as an argument and my original point goes unrefuted. You can't have it both ways.
This is digressing into utter nonsense. Go back to reddit if you want to troll.
You have chosen to label it as sarcasm to make your attack on the style rather than the substance of my point look reasonable - that's what I mean by it 'suiting you'.
I don't actually believe that the point about brain damaging babies was sarcasm. I think the poster was being serious because that is one of the harms caused by malaria. I don't at all see how this could be construed as a sarcastic comment.
If sarcasm was irrelevant, why did you base you use it to account for the false dichotomy?
Go back to reddit and have run arguing with yourself.
[0] http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management
Around the 88% of logging in Indonesia and 80% of logging in Brazil and Bolivia could be illegal in fact.