Extinction Paradox

Why does what we want and don't want with respect to extinctions matter? (And why aren't homo sapiens list on no. 2? (re: the Antropocene e.g. global warming / desertification))

Good question!

Man proposes, God disposes?

How would you explain the situation we're in? We want to help x but we can't seem to; we want to harm y and here too we can't seem to. Isn't this a classic case of being royally fucked?

Reply to Agent Smith :eyes:

Quoting Agent Smith

How would you explain the situation we're in?

The interconnectedness of all thing is called 'ecology'. Diversity produces resilience, because it allows more adaptation to changes in environment. Conversely, a monoculture is unstable because it is vulnerable to change in the form of pathogen, predator, or change in climate.

Humans are such a monoculture and prey to Quoting Agent Smith

(flies, roaches, mice, rats, mosquitoes)

that can exploit us. In looking after ourselves, we also create a paradise for those that prey on us, and in eliminating our competitors for food - caterpillars, slugs, carnivores, etc, we eliminate the competitors of those that exploit us. Cats catch mice, birds eat bugs.

@unelightened

That's the standard reply. Not that it doesn't make sense but my concern is this: some species seem to be extremely vulnerable while others seem to be completely invulnerable. Now consider the fact that those species we like are the former (evolutionarily weak) and those we don't like are the latter (evolutionarily strong). Doesn't it feel like the whole thing is rigged (against us)?

Warning: Paranoid delusions of persecution + Conspiracy theory.

Quoting Agent Smith

some species seem to be extremely vulnerable while others seem to be completely invulnerable.

Appearances can be deceptive. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/low_bandwidth.html

The more succesaful, evolutionarily speaking, an organism is, the more vermin/pest-like it is. Make any sense?

Reply to Agent Smith ... the more virus-like it is.

Reply to Agent Smith the distinction is false, biodiversity collapse will affect everyone and everything.

Quoting 180 Proof

The more virus-like ...

:cool:

Quoting Benkei

the distinction is false, biodiversity collapse will affect everyone and everything.

Yeah, the way I was taught ecology in school does jibe with what you say here. However, why would nature make itself so vulnerable which would be the case if every organism in a given ecology was absolutely essential to the whole ecosystem? 4.5 billion years of learning in the school of hard knocks should've ensured that the ship of nature could take some big hits and still stay afloat.

Flies ought outlive humans and live very efficient lifestyles, hiving on waste. Their lives aren't very significant. Broadly speaking where all simulations are concerned, flies may not be popular elements but one such as myself may promote an opposite ideal. The fly represents habitual misconduct and is great to keep a population triggered by uncleanliness.

If this is a thread about utopia/distopia I agree with it, but beyond that...

It doesn't really matter if we want things to remain tact, wanting Earth to be a certain way is thinking of utopia/distopia, two entirely different conjectures, that do not meld.

Reply to Agent Smith
Doesn't this have to do with the natural law of "Survival of the Fittest"?
And from what I know, roaches and other insects (maybe the most hateful living things for us) are the only living things that will survive an atomic ot other desctuction of the planet ... This makes them the fittest, as far as life is concerned. Gleah!

But yes, it is a paradox in a way: Since they are apparently the most useless --at least, from human viewpoint-- living things, besides lliving in the most unhealthy environment and conditions. So, one might ask, figuratively, "What does life want to prove?". Well, life doesn't want to prove anything. Like it or not, it has no purpose in and for itself.

It appears that we're not so much against predation as we are against parasitism with symbiosis being our ideal of what a relationship should be like.

Reply to Agent Smith Made itself vulnerable? Despite mankind fucking up the environment for over a century it's still there in a way that it supports our existence. It's not so much that a biodiversity collapse will end nature - not even catastrophic meteor strikes end nature - but it will end us.

Quoting Benkei

Made itself vulnerable? Despite mankind fucking up the environment for over a century it's still there in a way that it supports our existence. It's not so much that a biodiversity collapse will end nature - not even catastrophic meteor strikes end nature - but it will end us.

It seems nature doesn't care which one of us survives so long as one of us does. We're gonna change that!

Quoting Benkei

It's not so much that a biodiversity collapse will end nature - not even catastrophic meteor strikes end nature - but it will end us.

:100:

Reply to Agent Smith It seems most people are pro-predation in my opinion, but the relationship between parasitism and symbiosis is complicated to measure through the context of time. Do you have a suggestion for how to simultaneously reduce predatory behaviors that are caustic to a society based on symbiotic productivity while also reducing parasitic behaviors?

Reply to MonfortS26 Good question! These are the kindsa questions that make me wish I was a biologist. Let's go for the low hanging fruit shall we? I feel there's great symbiotic potential between green plants and animals - I feel if animals could photosynthesize, predation, even on plants, would immediately become pointless!

Reply to Agent Smith That is purely because homo sapiens, ergo, we, are not at the center of the universe. Without descending into poetic chaos, we cannot exert that much control over other life forms. And that does not necessarily mean that we are at a disadvantage. We merely have to realize the fact that we do not get to control anything and everything and work towards accepting it.