Hacker News Reader

Comment by sethgecko | Hacker News Reader

Kinda off-topic but

  4,500 species are critically endangered right now

Based on the fact that more than 99.9% of all the species are now extinct, how is this an alarming sign? It seems like a part of the natural evolutionary process.

View on HN

You may find this pair of articles interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2017/12/15/53e6147c-...

Species do go extinct, but not at the rate we are experiencing today. Even if the current rate of species loss was equal to the historical rate, that does not mean that humans wish to live in such a natural state of chaos. Did American culture lose some of its heritage with the near-extinction of the buffalo? Is it any less of a failure of humankind to drive polar bears to extinction than it would be to obliterate the complete works of Jack London from the face of the Earth? That shit is cool, and we should try to preserve it for future generations.

I think species have died at such rates before, during earlier mass extinction events. It's natural they happen once in a while.

If we always preserve what we have, there will be no room for something new to develop.

Sure. A mass extinction event which will take humans with it. Then a few million years down the line new speciation will fill all of the ecological niches in whatever equilibrium arises. The planet and life themselves are unlikely to be completely wiped out, absent some future technology we can’t yet imagine.

As long as you don’t have any attachment to anything more narrow than “all life on earth” (e.g. your family, language, city, country, culture, species, ...) thriving for a long time into the future, there’s no reason not to just shrug at whatever impending apocalypse.

Interesting wording - I indeed don't have any attachment to the things you mention. I do want intelligent life (for now, humanity) to survive and stay powerful, but I'll take the bet that we're adaptable enough to manage even if 90% of the other species perish.

You realize we're not in a massive extinction event now right? You're comparing things like giant meteors killing all the dinosaurs to right now? If you can see the sun, we shouldn't have all these animals dying.

> You realize we're not in a massive extinction event now right?

We are, in fact, in a mass extinction event right now, with extinction rates estimated at 1-2 orders of magnitude greater than any previous such event.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction

> If you can see the sun, we shouldn't have all these animals dying.

Not all previous mass extinctions have involved the sun be blotted out by impact or volcanic events, though several have.

> I think species have died at such rates before, during earlier mass extinction events.

No, they haven't; extinction rates in the current mass extinction event are much higher than previous ones.

You dying at mid 30s instead of living until your 80s and 90s is also a natural thing. It's not desirable just because it's natural.

But putting in practical terms of "what do I have to gain?", let me say this: every species is carrying unique genetic information that we can learn and employ to our advantages. Maybe a particular species doesn't have anything we can use right now, but might have in the future. Letting it be extinct mean we lose that information forever.

Genetic information is like nature's source code. Now imagine we can't write code, we can just use what's already out there. Every time a species dies, it's source code forever lost.

Like... plants in the Amazon forest. A lot of them served as the material for medicine. We used their "source code" to fight diseases, and fix human problems. And we are losing genetic source code we never even had time to analyze yet!

There are animals that can kind of rejuvenate, and they never die of old age. Imagine being able to "steal" their code and use it to make our health better! If they go extinct, we lost that source code. Forever.

There's no going back, no un-extinction. And we can't go to other planets to analyze their animals, since we haven't found alien life yet. All we have is the life that is available, and we're getting rid ot that life fast.

You have to consider the period of time over which those species became extinct. Per E.O. Wilson, we're losing species at a rate that is ~1,000 times faster than anything in the past. If it continues, the loss in biodiversity will lead to the breakdown of many ecosystems that we depend on for survival.

The species extinction rate is very high at the moment, but large impact events probably produce a higher rate and larger ecosystem disruption. The Chicxulub impact extinction event was a much worse than our current situation.

Damning with faint praise if the best we can say about our actions is “hey, at least we’re not as bad as this globally cataclysmic asteroid impact”.

I've always thought that about pandas. They dont have a mating instinct and have a very difficult diet in terms of effort required per calorie.

And they're going out of business. Isn't that evolution?

An interesting read on this: https://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3azkqx/til_na...

The short version - pandas are just find for their habitats, and aren't going out of business.

The traits of pandas sound odd, but they're actually common to lots of highly-successful animals. They mate just fine in the wild and are bulk feeders that can easily consume lots of low-efficiency food. Their population hasn't been in any kind of steady decline, but has plummeted twice, each time when large portions of their habitat were destroyed.

I realize Reddit comments are not generally citation worthy, but maybe read this one, and rethink what you've just posted?

https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2rmf6h/til_t...

They mate fine. Most of the problem has been linked to their zoo habitats, at least in the west. They were so precious that they weren't given the climbing structures (ie trees) to properly exercise in case they fall. The Chinese give them lots of climbing exercise and are breeding them just fine. Give humans too much food and no exercise and they stop breeding too.

Natural doesn't mean good. Climate change is natural in that humans arose naturally and have mostly followed our instincts. What we care about is keeping the environment in a state that works for us, not just letting natural processes play out.

Maybe the critically endangered species are not competitive with humans so they're cute and nice, while the species that thrive are competitive with humans so they're ugly, dirty and scary?

> 4,500 species are critically endangered right now

How many new species has evolution produced in that time? Zero?

Are you implying that the more species in existance the better? If so why?

Do you want to live in a world without any other living things? How many living things do you want? Is life less interesting if there are only two types of living beings?

I think that the world as we know it is valuable to us because we enjoy it, and nothing more. If we can't appreciate the beauty of life (most of us can't persist on the pure beauty of mathematics or conceptual analysis), what's the point?

I agree that biodiversity is a source of joy and education for me, and I'd add that it's also because we know something about ourselves--we know of the insatiability, the psychopathy, and the destructive nature that comes hand-in-hand with classical capitalism. Many of us see our conservation efforts as a necessary opposing force and as a way of saving ourselves from ourselves.

Only two creatures isn't really possible. It isn't even an ecosystem, it's a Game of Life simulation.

Yes, this sounds a lot like a Mars colony.

And you think that would be a fulfilling life if it wasn't exploring a new planet and shaping it to the way we want?

In terms of exploring a new planet, by the time people land on mars, the area they land on would have been explored by spacecraft and rovers in high detail.

In terms of shaping a planet the way we want, we can do that on earth, and more so if we figured out how to live without being dependent on other earth organisms.

You didn't answer the question. Is that life fulfilling? And is it so for most / all of the population?

Accelerated by us, and about to consume us whole.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com