Today I learned...

FOR SCIENCE!
User avatar
Prudentia
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:56 am

Re: Today I learned...

Post by Prudentia » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:04 pm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 2eb727b91d

Interesting paper, any thoughts? Pre-Emptive: No attacking the author, he is well published in his field of reptile systematics.
Black Rockfish, Sebastes melanops, ~12 inches, of the coast of Newport, Oregon.

User avatar
Tiberius
Posts: 5162
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 3:28 am
Location: Canada

Re: Today I learned...

Post by Tiberius » Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:35 am

Prudentia wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:04 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 2eb727b91d

Interesting paper, any thoughts? Pre-Emptive: No attacking the author, he is well published in his field of reptile systematics.
It seems well thought out, but I'd imagine that the part advocating moderation is going to be ignored by the same people who deny climate change. Clearcutting forests the Amazon and reckless wast dumping are ok because the environment just has to adapt to humans, not the other way around. It gives off the idea that everything revolves around us, and that the world will just have to cope.

User avatar
Prudentia
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:56 am

Re: Today I learned...

Post by Prudentia » Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:57 pm

Tiberius wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:35 am
Prudentia wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:04 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 2eb727b91d

Interesting paper, any thoughts? Pre-Emptive: No attacking the author, he is well published in his field of reptile systematics.
It seems well thought out, but I'd imagine that the part advocating moderation is going to be ignored by the same people who deny climate change. Clearcutting forests the Amazon and reckless wast dumping are ok because the environment just has to adapt to humans, not the other way around. It gives off the idea that everything revolves around us, and that the world will just have to cope.
Yeah, One of my professors had a fight break out on their facebook page over this paper, and I recently had a lengthy conservation with another professor (He was teaching the class that teaches about the basic ideas behind to mathematics in my profession) about it. His opinion was similar to mine, in that many of the author's points are valid, and we can allow some species to die with little if any impact to ecosystems and us. Sometimes conservation just doesn't make sense. But at the same time we felt that he was very anthropocentric, and that he was ignoring the basic concept that is gaining a lot of ground. The sixth mass extinction will have a recovery time greater than any other, and probably will occur in full while our species lives. We also both happened to believe that if CRISPR went bad, humanity could literally leave a planet behind that is completely devoid of life, only populated by dormant prions and viruses.
Black Rockfish, Sebastes melanops, ~12 inches, of the coast of Newport, Oregon.

User avatar
Ewery1
Posts: 2862
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:13 am
Location: The Himalayas

Re: Today I learned...

Post by Ewery1 » Sun Dec 03, 2017 9:15 pm

Prudentia wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:04 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 2eb727b91d

Interesting paper, any thoughts? Pre-Emptive: No attacking the author, he is well published in his field of reptile systematics.
It just feels awfully entitled to me. I personally despise human exceptionalism and this article is not exempt. Although technically true and an interesting perspective, I don't subscribe to it. I see no reason why we should let species go extinct for no reason other than laziness. There was also a bit about like climate change that struck me as slightly incorrect.
- Your local Red Panda with way too much power
Yasahiro wrote:Then improve the amphibity.... It's a word now, I made it.
Join my new classic competition game!

They're all grown up!
Image Image Image

User avatar
20 characters!
Posts: 19203
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:08 am
Location: North America, the best and worst bit of it.
Contact:

Re: Today I learned...

Post by 20 characters! » Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:50 pm

Prudentia wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:57 pm
Tiberius wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:35 am
Prudentia wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:04 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 2eb727b91d

Interesting paper, any thoughts? Pre-Emptive: No attacking the author, he is well published in his field of reptile systematics.
It seems well thought out, but I'd imagine that the part advocating moderation is going to be ignored by the same people who deny climate change. Clearcutting forests the Amazon and reckless wast dumping are ok because the environment just has to adapt to humans, not the other way around. It gives off the idea that everything revolves around us, and that the world will just have to cope.
Yeah, One of my professors had a fight break out on their facebook page over this paper, and I recently had a lengthy conservation with another professor (He was teaching the class that teaches about the basic ideas behind to mathematics in my profession) about it. His opinion was similar to mine, in that many of the author's points are valid, and we can allow some species to die with little if any impact to ecosystems and us. Sometimes conservation just doesn't make sense. But at the same time we felt that he was very anthropocentric, and that he was ignoring the basic concept that is gaining a lot of ground. The sixth mass extinction will have a recovery time greater than any other, and probably will occur in full while our species lives. We also both happened to believe that if CRISPR went bad, humanity could literally leave a planet behind that is completely devoid of life, only populated by dormant prions and viruses.

How did he suppose that '' if CRISPR went bad, humanity could literally leave a planet behind that is completely devoid of life, only populated by dormant prions and viruses.'' just give me a plausible hypothesis, to think of a kind of G.M.O capable of wiping out entire kingdoms of life, a few species perhaps a clade like mamalia, but wiping out all of eaths bacteria and miniture ekaryotes as well as insects and fast mutating grasses....seem kind of absurd, so please elaborate especially given prions and viruses do not really tend to cross genus barriers, let alone jump to other kingdoms of life an I struggle to view something like an ''ominivirus'' as remotley plausible.
youtubeuserSara3346
20 characters! wrote:*explodes into a gore shower
combi2 wrote: ... thought that all cows could produce unlimited antibodies,boy am i a retard.
combi2 wrote:you can`t thats not how humans work
Grockstar wrote:Bats it is then. They are the poor man's snake.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
20 characters!
Posts: 19203
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:08 am
Location: North America, the best and worst bit of it.
Contact:

Re: Today I learned...

Post by 20 characters! » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:01 pm

Tiberius wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:35 am
Prudentia wrote:
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:04 pm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... 2eb727b91d

Interesting paper, any thoughts? Pre-Emptive: No attacking the author, he is well published in his field of reptile systematics.
It seems well thought out, but I'd imagine that the part advocating moderation is going to be ignored by the same people who deny climate change. Clearcutting forests the Amazon and reckless wast dumping are ok because the environment just has to adapt to humans, not the other way around. It gives off the idea that everything revolves around us, and that the world will just have to cope.
Explain to me why him being a well respected scientist means I cannot attack his argument at a personal level given I disagree with his ethics rather than his data sets?

I disagree with his entire premise, that being that we humans should be selfish and only preserve species intrinsically linked with our own survival, I feel if we do that we in no way deserve to consider ourselves special, the only reason human life matters in my eyes is because we are this planets only sophonts capable of making ecological changes happen and because we have the power and resources to care, to be able to feel even a shred of empathy for other species in our world seems rare, something to be celebrated, not simply to be tossed aside for being inconvenient.

Edit: He also attempts to equate the actions of humans and beavers while not noting the markedly vast difference of intelligence and the time-frames associated with beavers and human activities, humans have alternative modes of living beavers do not, beavers may not even be fully aware of what they are achieving at all.

TLDR: I feel that to be distinctly ''human'' one should also strive to be distinctly humane and empathetic, to do otherwise is to waste our natural gifts.
youtubeuserSara3346
20 characters! wrote:*explodes into a gore shower
combi2 wrote: ... thought that all cows could produce unlimited antibodies,boy am i a retard.
combi2 wrote:you can`t thats not how humans work
Grockstar wrote:Bats it is then. They are the poor man's snake.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Prudentia
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:56 am

Re: Today I learned...

Post by Prudentia » Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:08 pm

20 characters! wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 2:50 pm
Prudentia wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 11:57 pm
Tiberius wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 4:35 am


It seems well thought out, but I'd imagine that the part advocating moderation is going to be ignored by the same people who deny climate change. Clearcutting forests the Amazon and reckless wast dumping are ok because the environment just has to adapt to humans, not the other way around. It gives off the idea that everything revolves around us, and that the world will just have to cope.
Yeah, One of my professors had a fight break out on their facebook page over this paper, and I recently had a lengthy conservation with another professor (He was teaching the class that teaches about the basic ideas behind to mathematics in my profession) about it. His opinion was similar to mine, in that many of the author's points are valid, and we can allow some species to die with little if any impact to ecosystems and us. Sometimes conservation just doesn't make sense. But at the same time we felt that he was very anthropocentric, and that he was ignoring the basic concept that is gaining a lot of ground. The sixth mass extinction will have a recovery time greater than any other, and probably will occur in full while our species lives. We also both happened to believe that if CRISPR went bad, humanity could literally leave a planet behind that is completely devoid of life, only populated by dormant prions and viruses.

How did he suppose that '' if CRISPR went bad, humanity could literally leave a planet behind that is completely devoid of life, only populated by dormant prions and viruses.'' just give me a plausible hypothesis, to think of a kind of G.M.O capable of wiping out entire kingdoms of life, a few species perhaps a clade like mamalia, but wiping out all of eaths bacteria and miniture ekaryotes as well as insects and fast mutating grasses....seem kind of absurd, so please elaborate especially given prions and viruses do not really tend to cross genus barriers, let alone jump to other kingdoms of life an I struggle to view something like an ''ominivirus'' as remotley plausible.
CROSPR is highly specific and can spread from cell to cell, possibly even individual to individual. Depending on what sequence you coded it to, it could jump barriers. Viruses do not tend to jump because they need specific host for reproduction. Proteins can only induce malformation in the same kind of proteins. If you linked CRISPR to a gene involved in milk, it would be able to jump to any mammal. Vertebrae, probably any vertebrate. To feather formation, likely any bird, a gene involved in the nucleus, quite possibly any eukaryote. I doubt that there is one magic DNA sequence that would kill all life, but I doubt that it would take more 50 CRISPR strains to render this planet completely lifeless.

Basically, if you could find a highly conserved gene, CRISPR could jump into anything possessing that gene.
Black Rockfish, Sebastes melanops, ~12 inches, of the coast of Newport, Oregon.

User avatar
20 characters!
Posts: 19203
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:08 am
Location: North America, the best and worst bit of it.
Contact:

Re: Today I learned...

Post by 20 characters! » Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:19 am

But what person would w possibly want to wipe out all of life on earth? I mean, ending humanity I could see, but why would anyone possibly have desire to see all of earths flora wither?
youtubeuserSara3346
20 characters! wrote:*explodes into a gore shower
combi2 wrote: ... thought that all cows could produce unlimited antibodies,boy am i a retard.
combi2 wrote:you can`t thats not how humans work
Grockstar wrote:Bats it is then. They are the poor man's snake.
ImageImageImage

User avatar
Prudentia
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:56 am

Re: Today I learned...

Post by Prudentia » Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:20 am

20 characters! wrote:
Sat Dec 23, 2017 7:19 am
But what person would w possibly want to wipe out all of life on earth? I mean, ending humanity I could see, but why would anyone possibly have desire to see all of earths flora wither?
The better question is why not? If you wipe out all humans it is because you feel that we can not learn from our mistakes, that we are doomed to repeat them. Well, so are any sentient beings, which means that one could kill all humanity, only for another sapient species to arise. Then all you did was for nothing. You must wipe out all life, because they could give rise to other sapient groups. If the only known sapient is incapable of learning from its mistakes, then so are all sapient species. Without any evidence, it is unreasonable (not to mention completely unfounded and anti-evidence) to assume violations to the precedent.

Take silicon based life, hypothetically possibly yes. But is it a possibility that we can reasonably (statistically) expect? No, because our sample size is one, our population is one, therefore, until new evidence is otherwise introduced, one is the only reasonable answer we can expect.

If you can only reasonably expect what you know, and nothing else, then it is only logical that anyone who seeks to destroy humanity, will seek to destroy all life.
Black Rockfish, Sebastes melanops, ~12 inches, of the coast of Newport, Oregon.

User avatar
Prudentia
Posts: 3947
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:56 am

Re: Today I learned...

Post by Prudentia » Fri Jan 05, 2018 5:25 pm

Ferritin is possibly one of the most conserved proteins in all life. Perhaps targeting ferritin genes could allow for the total extinction of all life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferritin

Homo floriensis appears to be even older than thought, and may actually be a sister to H. erectus, or even H. habilis. Current dating methods indicate that the specimens are closer to 60,000 years old than the previously claimed 12,000. Leading to a distinct possibility that modern humans wiped them out, as that was around the time of modern human arrival on Flores.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8417300866
Black Rockfish, Sebastes melanops, ~12 inches, of the coast of Newport, Oregon.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests