Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I worry this view is both pedantic and harmful.

Of course over geologic scales extinctions are quite normal, and nothing is static.

That doesn't mean ecosystems aren't normally resilient to perturbations on a smaller timescales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_stability

>Populations will get wiped out, species will disappear.

There is plenty of evidence that extinction rates are extremely high right now, and that humans are culpable. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12816



Why? It doesn't retract from the fact that biodiversity is important.

Biodiversity is important because nature is brutal.

And it's clear to anyone who is willing to listen that humans are culpable. But that doesn't mean nature will return to an equilibrium when humans disappear.


Is it really brutal? Can you single out "nature" and its characteristics?

Brutal sounds like a value judgement, one that I suspect explains nothing about the fact.

Can we accept that it just is, and we're part of that, for all our vices and virtues?


Embrace nature and go live in the jungle without clothes, tools, fire, water, food, medicine. Calling it brutal after such an experience wouldn’t be dismissed as a value judgement.


> I worry this view is both pedantic and harmful.

Yes it seems like excuse for enlightened apathy.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: