How come we are so smart?

[Muse]

Kolbert is a huge influence on me. I believe The Sixth Extinction is THE work of non-fiction for our times (but I didn't try to lift anything verbatim). It inspired me to use less of everything I can. I need to make my 'footprint' as small as possible because so much gets stepped on.

I love her somewhat lighthearted prediction of who will inherit the earth next.

I did a triple take on one particular sentence in the book, because it was a lightbulb moment:

Though it might be nice to imagine there once was a time when man lived in harmony with nature, it's not clear that he ever really did. - Elizabeth Kolbert (The Sixth Extinction)

My impression of the last page or so of the book (and this was about 14 hours ago) is that she pondered and just came up with a pessimistic idea and went with it. Obviously, nobody knows where we are going. I don't think it's inevitable that we will be responsible for our extinction in, say, the next 100,000 years or even 1,000,000 years. As said in "The Medium is the Massage," "there is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening." I take that on faith. There's been a lot of owning up and recognition of how we're screwing things up and movements to counteract that have broad exposure now.

In the book, Kolbert discussed somewhat elaborately a handful of labs that have crygenically preserved DNA, so it seemed to me odd that she didn't discuss the possibility of regenerating extinct species. I did some searching last night and came up with some things including a March 2014 interview of Kolbert discussing regeneration, her pessimism and other issues:

March 2014 interview

Granted, bringing extinct species back into existence may be a hopeless cause, even if possible, given the enormity of the extinction issues now (estimated 10,000 species go extinct yearly now, it is estimated), but I think it may be possible we can get a handle on the problems that are causing extinctions, at least the ones that threaten our own existence. It is possible to get off fossil fuels. We can stop deforestation, stop acidification of the oceans. I think these things are possible.

 

[Muse]

Kolbert is a huge influence on me. I believe The Sixth Extinction is THE work of non-fiction for our times (but I didn't try to lift anything verbatim). It inspired me to use less of everything I can. I need to make my 'footprint' as small as possible because so much gets stepped on.

I love her somewhat lighthearted prediction of who will inherit the earth next.

I had a girlfriend who commented that I wanted all my things to last forever. I didn't take offense, it's true that I deplore planned obsolescence, and have a penchant for fixing things when possible over tossing and replacing them. I actually enjoy doing that, generally.

What was that "lighthearted prediction" you refer too, I don't recall.

 

[bradly1101]

I had a girlfriend who commented that I wanted all my things to last forever. I didn't take offense, it's true that I deplore planned obsolescence, and have a penchant for fixing things when possible over tossing and replacing them. I actually enjoy doing that, generally.

What was that "lighthearted prediction" you refer too, I don't recall.

The rats in the cave huddled around the fire learning to use primitive tools.

She spent some time on rats in the book since we've exported them to every corner of the earth with our ships, and they adapt like nobody's business, killing off native species as they go. We share that aspect of our existence with rats; we're very weed-like, or 'weedy.'

 

[bradly1101]

I think more people would get on board if you gave them the argument from a self-interest perspective. Notions of nature being "good" or "harmonious" don't really make sense to me. All I see in nature is a horror show of animated biological matter that is constantly being chewed up and spit out in different shapes over the eons. The only allegiance I feel to anything in it is to the human race. Fortunately that is enough to make me want to preserve the rest of it. If we upset whatever balances there are that exist, new ones will form around whatever disturbances we cause. Nature itself is probably beyond our ability to completely destroy before we first destroy ourselves. In light of that, the only real morality that I see in it is with respect to our own well-being. Nature will probably go on, but whatever new state it settles in after we're done with it may not be that habitable for us. There's something everyone can be concerned about even if they couldn't care less how many cute animals they've never heard of go extinct in a rainforest they'll never see. Then it's not tree hugging anymore, but cold, calculated self-interest. Self interest works when all the moral and emotional appeals in the world won't.

Yes I believe that there is huge self-interest in changing our ways, but to most people the self-interest lies in the SUV, the travel and the comfort. Our society is designed around self-interest, it needs to be designed around collective-interest (including non-humans).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In the book, Kolbert discussed somewhat elaborately a handful of labs that have crygenically preserved DNA, so it seemed to me odd that she didn't discuss the possibility of regenerating extinct species. I did some searching last night and came up with some things including a March 2014 interview of Kolbert discussing regeneration, her pessimism and other issues:

She's pessimistic because she's smart. There are two problems I can identify which effectively sabotage any useful reason to revive a species for reasons other than putting animals on display.

First there is the problem of genetic diversity. Let's take the mammoth as an example. You clone one and that's what you have. One mammoth. So you clone another of a different sex. Now you have a breeding population? No you don't. Like breeding a brother and sister and their progeny having to do the same with others of the same parentage you are going to have real problems real quick. The nobility of Europe with it's inbred lineage has issues, but nothing like this. There's something knows as a minimum viable population. The general consensus is that a breeding population between 500 and 1000 is just that, a minimum. In reality it may be twice that. So you have to find the DNA of 2k mammoths to be absolutely sure. Now you clone and have one to two thousand mammoth. What the heck do you do with them? Where are you going to introduce them? What effects will they have on the ecosystem? So you want to do rhinos? OK, you introduce a couple thousand of them and they are poached out of existence again. Then what happens to ecosystems with reintroduced organisms? The decline and extinction would have other creatures stepping into the ecological niche, and now you have two competing species for the same resources. Overgrazing then? It's nice to have the ability, but the reality of putting it to use is a real can of trilobites.

 

[Fritzo]

A lot of biologists believe intelligence came from a combination of a brain defect in one of our ancestors and changing climate. Many species related to humans have the ability to make tools and manipulate their environment to their benefit much the way humans do. This would suggest a common ancestor that started the movement to intelligence. Colder climates gave rise to bipedalism, freeing up hands to be used for tool making.

You can see what brain defects do to people today- some hyperintelligent humans are also autistic or socially deficient. If these traits were beneficial to survival back then, they would be passed on and focused to the point where the entire species has these traits.

 

[SlitheryDee]

She's pessimistic because she's smart. There are two problems I can identify which effectively sabotage any useful reason to revive a species for reasons other than putting animals on display.

First there is the problem of genetic diversity. Let's take the mammoth as an example. You clone one and that's what you have. One mammoth. So you clone another of a different sex. Now you have a breeding population? No you don't. Like breeding a brother and sister and their progeny having to do the same with others of the same parentage you are going to have real problems real quick. The nobility of Europe with it's inbred lineage has issues, but nothing like this. There's something knows as a minimum viable population. The general consensus is that a breeding population between 500 and 1000 is just that, a minimum. In reality it may be twice that. So you have to find the DNA of 2k mammoths to be absolutely sure. Now you clone and have one to two thousand mammoth. What the heck do you do with them? Where are you going to introduce them? What effects will they have on the ecosystem? So you want to do rhinos? OK, you introduce a couple thousand of them and they are poached out of existence again. Then what happens to ecosystems with reintroduced organisms? The decline and extinction would have other creatures stepping into the ecological niche, and now you have two competing species for the same resources. Overgrazing then? It's nice to have the ability, but the reality of putting it to use is a real can of trilobites.

I would guess that there are many things that would have to be in place long before you even start thinking about cloning a species to repopulate. If humans are directly responsible as with rhinos, you'd just have to wait until humanity reaches the point where is no longer interested in poaching. Doesn't matter if that happens through enforcement or enlightenment, but it has to happen before you even think about starting. Where the problem is environmental, much work would have to be done to return the animal's habitat to a state that could conceivably support it. Once the ecosystem had adjusted to the absence of the animal, that might be well nigh impossible to do.

I could see in some areas where a large herbivore went extinct and nothing replaced it, whatever they were eating would grow unopposed. Introducing that animal again would cause a population explosion as the animal began to eat through the now abundant plant life. It's hard to predict what would happen as a result of that. Possibly an population explosion in whatever predator is there that can eat that animal. Eventually the plant life would run out and there would be an unsupportable population of the reintroduced animal, which would now begin to die off en-mass. Now the predators who were eating them have an unsupportable population and hunt everything else to extinction. You could actually end up with fewer animals than you started with. It's certainly something you don't want to just do and hope for the best anyway.

 

[moonbogg]

Lolno

You could be right, or you could be wrong. The problem here RUPTGA is you don't know which one you are. God made you this way so I could prove you wrong. Destiny

 

[DrPizza]

First there is the problem of genetic diversity. Let's take the mammoth as an example. You clone one and that's what you have. One mammoth. So you clone another of a different sex. Now you have a breeding population? No you don't. Like breeding a brother and sister and their progeny having to do the same with others of the same parentage you are going to have real problems real quick.

Was just following a discussion with a group of other goat people the other day. They were discussing line breeding and trying to explain it to someone new to the idea.

"When it works, it's line breeding. When it doesn't work, it's called in-breeding."

 

[Ruptga]

You could be right, or you could be wrong. The problem here RUPTGA is you don't know which one you are. God made you this way so I could prove you wrong. Destiny

A great philosopher once said "As a n00b it is your duty to get pwnd." You're the n00b here, n00b, so obviously you're the one that exists to be proven wrong.

Check.

Mate.

 

[moonbogg]

A great philosopher once said "As a n00b it is your duty to get pwnd." You're the n00b here, n00b, so obviously you're the one that exists to be proven wrong.

Check.

Mate.

shit. I mean crap D:

 

[bradly1101]

She's pessimistic because she's smart. There are two problems I can identify which effectively sabotage any useful reason to revive a species for reasons other than putting animals on display.

First there is the problem of genetic diversity. Let's take the mammoth as an example. You clone one and that's what you have. One mammoth. So you clone another of a different sex. Now you have a breeding population? No you don't. Like breeding a brother and sister and their progeny having to do the same with others of the same parentage you are going to have real problems real quick. The nobility of Europe with it's inbred lineage has issues, but nothing like this. There's something knows as a minimum viable population. The general consensus is that a breeding population between 500 and 1000 is just that, a minimum. In reality it may be twice that. So you have to find the DNA of 2k mammoths to be absolutely sure. Now you clone and have one to two thousand mammoth. What the heck do you do with them? Where are you going to introduce them? What effects will they have on the ecosystem? So you want to do rhinos? OK, you introduce a couple thousand of them and they are poached out of existence again. Then what happens to ecosystems with reintroduced organisms? The decline and extinction would have other creatures stepping into the ecological niche, and now you have two competing species for the same resources. Overgrazing then? It's nice to have the ability, but the reality of putting it to use is a real can of trilobites.

Yes sometimes our notions are a little fanciful but impractical. I'm afraid people see things in movies and try to push the technology there only to say, "I did it!" It's how I feel about putting a man on mars. Space colonies somehow protected from the radiation en route to ships flying about the galaxy? Leave it in the movies.

 

[Jeff7]

Have you ever seen a bird build an intricate home fifty feet up a tree? Have you ever seen a chimpanzee use a stick to extract insects from a nest? Or watched a chameleon blend into its surroundings? A whale communicating with its pod? I think it's all ingenious.

One thing that separates us is our mastery of materials, but look what we've done with that. We're paving over the earth and blowing pollution out of the backs of vehicles and airplanes because we want to travel in comfort. I saw a report on the evening news that showed how they're tracking pollution from Asia and believe it is worsening storms in the U.S., who set the standard. At least our mastery of materials gave us phones to stare at, conquering boredom with noise rather than peace, when boredom is just one judgement away from true serenity, so we never find it. Smart?

Another thing that separates us is language, or rather how we interpret it. The cat growls at another cat; the message is "go away." Was that effective communication? There are creatures in the ocean that communicate with luminescence, how ingenious and well spoken! Clearly we aren't the only ones that communicate. And when we do all I usually hear or overhear is gossip. "Who's stupid now, why won't she do that..." It's inane.

I'm a hypocrite though. I have a car, a phone and I'm typing this on a PC with all its plastic, oil derived parts. I could eschew the trappings of modern society, or just embrace that day down the road when I get to give it all up.

A big cheat code was written language.
Other animals are constrained to having to learn from others who are in close proximity, and which are fairly alive. (You can still learn something from something dead, but the longer it's dead, the less information you can obtain.) Written language meant that you could still learn something from someone who died awhile ago. It also didn't change day to day. Our memories suck far more than we'd like to believe.

But yes, we use written and spoken language, and encode a ridiculous amount of information in those sophisticated grunts and scribbles.
Then we built machines that convert those scribbles into magnetic fields or bubbles of confined electrons, and specially encode it again so that we can squeeze more stored information into a small space. Then we build machines to hand-hold our 100k-year-old brains through the process of sifting through the ridiculous amount of information we've accumulated.



I wonder if dolphins or elephants or chimps could be taught how to read and write, and see if any of them understand the value of it.
Then set them loose in the wild again and see what they come up with. You know, because screwing around with an entire species' natural course of history is fun.