Mathematical models of natural behaviors are, without exception, time-local. The net benefit on any timescales that actually matter have yet to be seen.
> Remember food? You like food, right? This is bad for the food.
Maybe I’ll starve. Maybe all of humanity will starve. Only one thing is certain: something else will come along to fill our niche.
What an incredibly honest way of formulating a scientific argument.
Wise human. I made the same decision.
HN Comments section is endlessly frustrating, but is also, as my meditation coach always used to say, the perfect teacher. Sometimes an argument is won, but the interlocutor fails to notice. In these cases, no matter how frustrating, the argument is still won. While tempting, nothing is gained by explaining to them the interlocutor that they've lost; the not-noticing is itself the unfakeable signal of the fact.
This orange hellsite is a masterclass in discourse and rhetoric, and knowing when to rest your case turns out to be a huge tranche of these arts.
There could be an asteroid impact and someone would be jocularly arguing that asteroids are neither good nor bad, and that being sad about it is woke nonsense, and that the asteroid is winning in the marketplace of ideas, or is full of iridium or some other valued metal, and is therefore a net boon to human populations in several million years (if any) who could, after all, make cool swords out of its ore.
The absolute dissociation from anything like a tender, ecologically connected mindset is laughable until you remember that the people speaking are all mostly making six figures and are, for better or worse, our generation's elite.
This plant is choking out whole ecosystems. Yes, there are (mathematical!) measures of genetic diversity; they are trending down; this is bad because it destabilizes the food web.
Remember food? You like food, right? This is bad for the food.