Hacker News Reader

Comment by da39a3ee | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The point of climate change is precisely that it changes the conditions in virtually all our habitats. The species in those habitats, being largely adapted to their existing range of conditions, may not be able to adapt to those rapidly changing conditions, and as a result large parts of those ecosystems collapse.

Just look at any prior major climate change event, for example the Permian extinction, thought to be triggered by major volcanic eruptions causing severe climate change - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian–Triassic_extinction_...

When you’re talking about something that wipes out 70% of terrestrial vertebrates and 80% of marine species, you can understand how the concept of “preserving biologically diverse habitats” is incompatible.

Not long ago I did a story about the Appalachian salamander which is a threatened species within its range. It lives in the higher elevations of the Smokey and Appalachian mountains. As the climate warms, these salamanders are moving up slope to adapt. But now they are out of elevation. They are already inhabiting the top of the forested mountains and have nowhere else to go if warming trends continue.

The obsession with climate change has produced a generation who think that any tree species is ok if it replenishes carbon. People who don't understand that some natural habitats are incomparably more important for birds than secondary forest and reforestation efforts.

Why does it matter if other birds can adapt? We got lots of different types of birds. It's awesome. Maybe we'll get new types of birds! Why does "this particular variation is going extinct" matter?

This is so bizarrely flippant. We are seeing massive declines in bird populations. It is not just a matter of a few variations going extinct and new types of birds magically appearing within our lifetimes.

Nice try but that argument doesn't work: predicted speed of change to planet under climate change is much much greater than under previously seen natural changes to habitats.

Yeah so? I think you're suffering from geneticism. The idea that we only change through inherited traits and mutations over geological time periods is ancient nonsense compared to what we know about epigenetics now.

The irony is Jean Baptiste Lamarck had it closer than anyone. Animals genetically adapt to new environments in their own lifetimes and that includes making changes to the DNA.

We can also help them to adapt.

The idea that this is dismissive of the problem is nonsense. It's the solution.

Actually, no, I have a PhD, and postdoc in this area. You, on the other hand, have read too much pop science about epigenetics. Surely you know that what sells pop science is novelty, so claiming that "Darwin was wrong because epigenetics" is a great commercial strategy. Sounds like it worked on you?

Have you read the field lately?

Just how long ago was your molecular biology degree? Mine was 7 years ago and I've been reading every week since then.

You should try to keep up.

Aren't they correlated?

A bit, yes. But it's perfectly possible to destroy a bird's breeding habitat without affecting global climate. The focus should be on the species we share the planet with and preventing their extinction. Planetary atmospheric issues are not what nature conservation is about.

Apparently forests aren't part of the ecosphere :) Who knew.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com