Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Let's form an investigative committee to draft a proposal

Topic: Deextinction and Rewilding (Read 262 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Bilirubin
  • Ain't nothing ta fuck wit'
Deextinction and Rewilding

  • ravenscape
  • Administrator
  • Triggered
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #1
necrofauna is such a cool word.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #2
Yeh I liked that.

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #3
Can we make fast growing T-rexes and velociraptors yet? I want to set some loose in DC.  :D

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #4
Here in Ireland people are doing their level best to de-wild and re-extinct wild boar, even though they were native here once.


Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #5
but with mammoths duh

  • Peez
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #6

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #7
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.

  • Peez
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #8
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #9
It reminds me of the Atomic donkey
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #10
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez
Go cheerleader spotted. Go hang out with teeth and talk about how, despite the genes getting loose into wild species, the genes don't get out into wild species. Or talk about how excellent it is that we are initiating an evolutionar arms race with bugs and plant diseases. Or maybe just how great it is that we can now drench a sizable fraction of our arable land with roundup. Yes, the gmo consensus is exactly what ontic described it as, ridiculously narrow value propositions with a level of problem externalization that should concern everyone but doesnt because science.

The fact that there are benefits is currently vastly outweighed by the concerns over the application and business model.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #11
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back.

The technical challenges alone are holding scientists back from doing 99.99999% of what you imagine we're doing.

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #12
I have genuine issues with how GM has been applied, and will likely continue to be applied (roundup ready etc). But that doesn't make the technology bad, just poorly applied. The technical difficulties in making drought tolerant rice, or plants that photosynthesise twice as efficiently means that the stuff that you might seem to be good are simply not going to happen any time soon. The best we can hope for is another variant on the "Green Revolution".
Why do I bother?

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #13
We've been in an arms race with plant pests and diseases since we started doing agriculture. Banana flavoured stuff doesn't taste like modern bananas because we had to change the variety we grew because the plantations got wiped out. People have been breeding for blight resistance in potatoes  since the 19th Century. GM just means that rather than crossing your spud with a wild strain and hoping you get to keep the size, shape, and taste of the modern species with the pest resistance of the wild species, you can pick the traits you want, and not lose any. But even that is really difficult.

Sequencing genomes is easy these days. I don't think working out what each gene actually does is any easier than it was when I was at uni.
Why do I bother?

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #14
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #15
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

Inconsistent without doubt.  Blind acceptance of industrially driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus GMO science should naturally be the trivial extension of blind acceptance of UN IPCC driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus climate science.

And after all, consensus is paramount in modern science where the outmoded and troublesome burden of evidence has been largely superceded.  Consensus is a far more reliable indicator of scientific truth and has served as an all but infallible guide throughout the history of human enquiry.

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #16
Except that the exceptionally narrow value measures involved in global warming involve human extinction.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #17
From Ehrlich's Population Bomb to Testy's Extinction Horizon.  Who to believe!?  If you trouble to google 'human population' it looks like they didn't get your memo.  That's half a century after the human caused ice age human extinction alarm and half a century into the human caused inferno human extinction alarm.

  • F X
  • The one and only
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #18
Except that the exceptionally narrow value measures involved in global warming involve human extinction.
Nonsense
"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man."
― Mark Twain 🔭

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #19
Except that the exceptionally narrow value measures involved in global warming involve human extinction.
Nonsense

No. Not nonsense. That is one of the values we need to consider.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #20
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

Inconsistent without doubt.  Blind acceptance of industrially driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus GMO science should naturally be the trivial extension of blind acceptance of UN IPCC driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus climate science.

And after all, consensus is paramount in modern science where the outmoded and troublesome burden of evidence has been largely superceded.  Consensus is a far more reliable indicator of scientific truth and has served as an all but infallible guide throughout the history of human enquiry.
Yeah, let's not think for ourselves. Count the scientists.

For one thing, the money trail clearly points in opposite directions in each case. Our acknowledgement of AGW is still being hampered by oil barons (oh, and a consensus, kinda, was that Trump would be the way to go...not unconnected). Meanwhile, big business has railroaded GMO onto the planet, paid for most of the 'research', sold more of its original products and gained control of the increasingly monoculture new products through patents. Call that 'not being implemented well' if you like.

  • Peez
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #21
Quote
Testy Calibrate:
Go cheerleader spotted. Go hang out with teeth and talk about how, despite the genes getting loose into wild species, the genes don't get out into wild species. Or talk about how excellent it is that we are initiating an evolutionar arms race with bugs and plant diseases. Or maybe just how great it is that we can now drench a sizable fraction of our arable land with roundup. Yes, the gmo consensus is exactly what ontic described it as, ridiculously narrow value propositions with a level of problem externalization that should concern everyone but doesnt because science.

The fact that there are benefits is currently vastly outweighed by the concerns over the application and business model.
This is exactly the sort of response I would expect from a denier of anthropogenic climate change: I am dismissed as a "cheerleader", then vague assertions are supplied about a number of things that relate to GMO's without actually addressing what is wrong with GMO's, and no actual science presented.  I am disappointed.

Peez

  • Peez
Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #22
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

Inconsistent without doubt.  Blind acceptance of industrially driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus GMO science should naturally be the trivial extension of blind acceptance of UN IPCC driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus climate science.

And after all, consensus is paramount in modern science where the outmoded and troublesome burden of evidence has been largely superceded.  Consensus is a far more reliable indicator of scientific truth and has served as an all but infallible guide throughout the history of human enquiry.
Yeah, let's not think for ourselves. Count the scientists.

For one thing, the money trail clearly points in opposite directions in each case. Our acknowledgement of AGW is still being hampered by oil barons (oh, and a consensus, kinda, was that Trump would be the way to go...not unconnected). Meanwhile, big business has railroaded GMO onto the planet, paid for most of the 'research', sold more of its original products and gained control of the increasingly monoculture new products through patents. Call that 'not being implemented well' if you like.
References, please.

Peez

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #23
Quote
Testy Calibrate:
Go cheerleader spotted. Go hang out with teeth and talk about how, despite the genes getting loose into wild species, the genes don't get out into wild species. Or talk about how excellent it is that we are initiating an evolutionar arms race with bugs and plant diseases. Or maybe just how great it is that we can now drench a sizable fraction of our arable land with roundup. Yes, the gmo consensus is exactly what ontic described it as, ridiculously narrow value propositions with a level of problem externalization that should concern everyone but doesnt because science.

The fact that there are benefits is currently vastly outweighed by the concerns over the application and business model.
This is exactly the sort of response I would expect from a denier of anthropogenic climate change: I am dismissed as a "cheerleader", then vague assertions are supplied about a number of things that relate to GMO's without actually addressing what is wrong with GMO's, and no actual science presented.  I am disappointed.

Peez
Heh. When people say gmos are good science therefore good policy a kitten drowns in boston.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Deextinction and Rewilding
Reply #24
So many of these issues make me feel helpless. We have corporate interests running the show, in tandem with scientists with little to hold them back. This field, like nanotech and AI, is almost entirely outside of the democratic process. When there is a public outcry, such as with GM crops, those voices are just shouted down as ignorant, by referencing corporate-funded scientific studies with ridiculously narrow value-measures (usually productivity and profit-cost).

This was bad for decades. Now that things are really hotting up (global warming, rising isolationism, robots taking even more jobs, the deep politicization of the Internet and cyber-warfare, social media filter bubbles where we all end up talking to ourselves...), it is getting pretty scary. I think we're likely to feel more pressure of time, make decisions more authoritatively without democratic involvement (or just the protest-on-the-sidelines type), and more unilaterally. While 'globalism' is a handy whipping-boy, it doesn't just disappear because you build walls, and solutions to these things must largely be global concerns. Even with the best decision-making we could devise, the future involves vast amounts of chaos, especially with all these levels of change coming together.

Oh, yes, this is TR. Alternative caption for the first picture: "Look! Baby mamoths had butt-holes!" And Britt Ray is hot.
There are certainly issues that we should be concerned about, but I find it odd that you accept the scientific consensus on global warming but not on GMO's.

Peez

Inconsistent without doubt.  Blind acceptance of industrially driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus GMO science should naturally be the trivial extension of blind acceptance of UN IPCC driven ridiculously narrow value-measures consensus climate science.

And after all, consensus is paramount in modern science where the outmoded and troublesome burden of evidence has been largely superceded.  Consensus is a far more reliable indicator of scientific truth and has served as an all but infallible guide throughout the history of human enquiry.
Yeah, let's not think for ourselves. Count the scientists.

For one thing, the money trail clearly points in opposite directions in each case. Our acknowledgement of AGW is still being hampered by oil barons (oh, and a consensus, kinda, was that Trump would be the way to go...not unconnected). Meanwhile, big business has railroaded GMO onto the planet, paid for most of the 'research', sold more of its original products and gained control of the increasingly monoculture new products through patents. Call that 'not being implemented well' if you like.

You literally cannot be serious in the first part of your money trail claim.  Government funding - with your taxes - of alarmist climate science makes the Manhattan Project look like a school science fair.  The fossil fuel industry itself ploughs plenty in also.  Cash funding research into natural climate drivers - which you doubtless have some hysterical slur name for - is utterly trivial in comparison.