Comment by anyfoo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anyfoo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> We don't know what the cause is.

I'm always wondering what cause someone who replies with this is trying to advance.

You are probably correct, we don't know what the cause is for this specific problem. We do know that we cause massive, let's say, "alterations" to the oceans by acidification and plastic pollution alone, and there is very strong indication that the effects of those alterations are not positive.

So the worst case when addressing those issues is that we have solved or at the very least ameliorated acidification and plastic pollution, only to find out that gray whales dying specifically was not covered by those causes.

Yes, finding out the actual cause is important (there may be other issues we are not yet aware of), but prioritizing the recovery of the ocean in general is not exactly a waste of effort in the meantime. As an analogy, if a bathroom smells like excrement, fixing the toilets known to overflow is a suitable activity. If it still smells like excrement after, or if you discover a different cause while the toilets are being fixed, you're still glad you fixed those toilets.

I agree, the "we don't know that the cause is" type of answer makes me think of those doctors saying back in the days that we didn't know whether smoking cigarettes caused health issues.

There's something called common sense and it's whatever contradicts common sense that deserves a clear explanation/evidence. It's quite obvious that whales shouldn't expect much from the way we treat our oceans.

> I'm always wondering what cause someone who replies with this is trying to advance.

Rational thought? The search for truth?

The moment we are happy with “humans lol” as an answer to everything, we’ve given up on science and solutions.

In this scenario, finding the actual cause could actually lead to a specific solution (e.g. banning a particular type of sonar).

Cause? Saying "it is very possible, even likely, that human activity caused this, but as of right now we just don't know, so let's not jump to conclusions and do the science first" requires some shady motive now. Refusal to blame yourself with literally 0 evidence is itself evidence that someone is an oil company shill or something.

Troubleshooting is very much like science.

If you are trying to fix the problem, finding the cause is very important. By just doing something, or worst many somethings, you may make the problem worse and still have no clue of how to fix it.

Now something like this is a little harder because it is not just trying to fix a problem, it is trying to fix a problem with a time limit. Similar to emergency medicine. But harder because the patient is one who's anatomy and physiology you are not familiar with. And they might have reactions to the medicine you are giving them.

The article keeps hinting at lack of food, malnourished, feeding in unusual places. Then goes on to say the last mass die off occurred during colder than usual weather as opposed the recent hotter then usual. It sounds like more data would be very helpful.

Also >Refusal to blame yourself with literally 0 evidence is itself evidence that someone is an oil company shill or something.

Is very hostile and breaks the guideline: >Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I don't know that questioning this idiom breaks the guidelines.

If not a shill it sounds like an ask for more resources, to save the gray whales or study the oceans, or something.

Either way, "a precise cause has yet to be determined" seems to be playing a little too close to the vest, and can be true without being especially meaningful.

"Bad ocean management" turns out to be more of a triage problem and less blue-sky research for the sake of knowledge.

The insinuation that there's a motive to say "we don't quite know what it is yet", in the comment I was responding to, is all I addressed. That assumes bad faith, all I'm doing is pointing out how ridiculous such an assumption is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com