> you're trying to return nature to a previous state before humans interfered

"Those of you who volunteered to be injected with praying mantis DNA, I've got some good news and some bad news. Bad news is we're postponing those tests indefinitely. Good news is we've got a much better test for you: fighting an army of mantis men. Pick up a rifle and follow the yellow line. You'll know when the test starts."

Is it that everyone in Portal 2 is a moron or is it everyone in real life?

https://youtu.be/531Wsv5Igtk

The problem I have, is it is getting increasingly difficult for me to not answer "Yes" to that question as I get older.

Portal 2 is filled to brimming with satire. However, I am inclined to agree with the above commenter: it does seem that things get more and more absurd as I get older.

This is great because I just replayed this game this past week so the quote was fresh.

That's the best-case scenario, the worse-case is that in trying to fix a problem we caused, we fail and end up with more problems.

I mean, this isn't news to those of us that write code.

Even if we succeed we can end up with more problems. Nature isn't math, if you add something, then remove it, you don't end up where you started. The ecosystem adapts to both changes separately and it's often hard to predict what will happen.

Not that I would worry in this case.

This is a universal argument for never doing anything.

It "proves too much" in argument jargon.

Why do some people believe that deliberately and carefully trying to fix a problem and inadvertently introducing an unforeseen side-effect is worse than deliberately choosing not to do nothing about a disease that leads to sickness and death?

The introduction of an invasive species can have an overall beneficial effect if carefully evaluated, and there is a lot that can go wrong.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species#Favorable_e...

It appears that a "gene drive" was introduced into the Florida Keys in this case, and that is much more targeted and specific to a species that it is intended to destroy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TnzcwTyr6cE

And you can fix code by recompiling; there's a tabula rasa built into the programming domain that isn't built into real life.

Humans "interfering" is nature. Lol.

By that definition, everything is “nature”, so the word is meaningless.

Yeah.... I don't find this disagreeable

Ever read on the idea that most megafauna was hunted down by men?

Yeah... that seems pretty erhm, "unnatural", therefore the entire rest of the world is "unnatural"

Supposedly the tsetse fly was local to a very small area of Africa, yet during the 1700 and 1800 during colonialism it spread onto the rest of the continent, before that the continent was quite settled with larger farm fields in respective areas, but the tzetze fly disrupted all that

Anyhow just wanted to say that "nature" and "natural" once one starts digging more are not really "useful" descriptions, because the world is complex and not an idealized scenario

The era in which we live is called "Anthropocene", which is defined so because humans are powerful enough to define the environment. Wild days were in haha.

Precisely