If 14 wolves change rivers then what is the planetary effect of 10 billion humans?
===============================================
https://www.singularityweblog.com/our-grey-goo-future-possibility-and-probability/
Yeah, people don't seem to understand the 'system' part of ecosystem. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to engineer humans to be herbivores. Farming livestock is incredibly resource intensive not to mention some of the ancillary effects like antibiotic resistance from putting the drugs in animal feed. I think ultimately we'll grow our beef, chicken and fish from engineered cells swimming around in vats. That's also an option but I don't think our bodies have evolved to handle a high protein diet. For example, predators have much shorter intestinal tracts so that food is eliminated before it can putrefy. We have much longer tracts because that's what you need to draw as many nutrients as possible from a mostly vegetable and fruit diet.I came upon a thread on Reddit, I think in the philosophy sub or somesuch. The topic was a debate over the ability to genetically engineer carnivores to become herbivores - not so much if it was possible but whether it was a worthy goal. And some of these nutjobs were actually arguing for it! I couldn't believe what I was reading. Aside from the obvious ramifications of doing this, just the sheer audacity to believe that it would be a worthwhile end result, was mind boggling.
sorry I don't see it as trickle down anything, it's a cause and effect situation. he just enjoys putting saint ronnie on a pedestal whenever a 'chance' arises.
I came upon a thread on Reddit, I think in the philosophy sub or somesuch. The topic was a debate over the ability to genetically engineer carnivores to become herbivores - not so much if it was possible but whether it was a worthy goal. And some of these nutjobs were actually arguing for it! I couldn't believe what I was reading. Aside from the obvious ramifications of doing this, just the sheer audacity to believe that it would be a worthwhile end result, was mind boggling.
I came upon a thread on Reddit, I think in the philosophy sub or somesuch. The topic was a debate over the ability to genetically engineer carnivores to become herbivores - not so much if it was possible but whether it was a worthy goal. And some of these nutjobs were actually arguing for it! I couldn't believe what I was reading. Aside from the obvious ramifications of doing this, just the sheer audacity to believe that it would be a worthwhile end result, was mind boggling.
Same. Ripple effects are not the same thing as the much worshiped trickle down effect, and ecology doesn't have anything to do with economics. Population count is not a currency, and ranking on a food chain is not an economic or social rank. The only real similarity is that both are vast webs of cause and effect that are (at best) only mostly understood.
I don't know, it seemed like they were implying that a bunch of the impacts they are seeing from the reintroduction of the wolves was a pretty big surprise to them.
Yeah, people don't seem to understand the 'system' part of ecosystem. But it wouldn't be a bad idea to engineer humans to be herbivores. Farming livestock is incredibly resource intensive not to mention some of the ancillary effects like antibiotic resistance from putting the drugs in animal feed. I think ultimately we'll grow our beef, chicken and fish from engineered cells swimming around in vats. That's also an option but I don't think our bodies have evolved to handle a high protein diet. For example, predators have much shorter intestinal tracts so that food is eliminated before it can putrefy. We have much longer tracts because that's what you need to draw as many nutrients as possible from a mostly vegetable and fruit diet.
Yup, they do. At Yellowstone.
Watch this 5 min video, it's bloody amazing, if you like nature, you'll love this. It's nothing short of astounding how big of an impact the reintroduction of Wolves to Yellowstone was/is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
why do wolves kill coyotes?
I'd figure they go for easier prey than another hunter.
why don't wolves kill rabbits/mice?
ie: less coyotes = more rabbits/mice which brings more hawks/eagles
sorry I don't see it as trickle down anything, it's a cause and effect situation. he just enjoys putting saint ronnie on a pedestal whenever a 'chance' arises.
Same. Ripple effects are not the same thing as the much worshiped trickle down effect, and ecology doesn't have anything to do with economics. Population count is not a currency, and ranking on a food chain is not an economic or social rank. The only real similarity is that both are vast webs of cause and effect that are (at best) only mostly understood.
I'm with you, Mother Nature is way smarter then we are and we fuck with her way too much as it is.
why do wolves kill coyotes?
I'd figure they go for easier prey than another hunter.
why don't wolves kill rabbits/mice?
ie: less coyotes = more rabbits/mice which brings more hawks/eagles
Threat to their hunting area? Something they've done for 100,000 years plus?
I think they probably do kill rabbits/mice, but with them being bigger predators, they would logically go after larger prey, like deer, elk, etc.
what in the blue fuck are you talking about conner?
This is why we can't successfully "manage" nature in any way; we don't even come close to fully understanding its web.
Also, I have to object about mother nature "knowing" anything. There is no Gaia, just a thin film of life clinging to a clod of rock in one form or another for a few billion years. Natural things fuck themselves up all the time, like how our bodies will break down our own muscles before our fat because muscle is easier. If we could directly metabolize fats even neckbeards would be like Olympians, they're that much better of an energy source, but we don't.