Hacker News Reader

How did you that conclusion from what I said?

The timing and placement of your statement comes off as a challenge to the original statement. It appears you’re implying that what we’re doing today is ok because it is part of a natural process. While true, we also have agency to transcend the natural process or perpetuate it.

Just because it has happened, doesn’t mean we should endorse and accelerate it. What we do determines the future.

So are you arguing we should prevent the extinction that would happen naturally? The extinction where man played no role?

Why?

Maybe. If that helpes us develop better medicines or food crops it sounds like the smart thing to do. Instead of waiting around for 2 million years until eco-system has recovered.

However, in my opinion, it's a rather uninteresting hypothetical because human activity absolutely does play a huge role in the extinction of species today.

> Maybe. If that helpes us develop better medicines or food crops it sounds like the smart thing to do.

What about the ramifications of doing so?

What about the ramifications of not preventing extinction caused by human activity (or other causes)?

That’s a separate discussion.

I’m not sure fiddling with natural levels of extinction are smart.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com