this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
69 points (100.0% liked)

news

23557 readers
631 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today/ . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hatandwatch@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yes that's exactly right. Not all invasive species are a result of human fuckery (speaking outside of the scope of this particular article) and is literally natural. Extinction is natural. Ecosystem upheaval is natural. Why is your human ego and feelings for one species important here?

And you don't even understand the irony. Sure on a macro level rock stacking is likely inconsequential most times, but you have no consideration to the micro ecosystems you're upheaving because they're out of sight. How many bacteria have you caused to go extinct? Lmao I don't even care that badly about rock stacking I just thought it was a silly insult.

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

ok, to clarify arent all species invasive, as they need to compete in new environments as other environment change (cough or humans destroy their habitat by burning black ground juice cough) and become unsuitable?

to me central planning and scientific engagement is key to marxism, besides bourgeois interests being the thing that will find a way to mess this up, i can't think of other major issues... help me out here if ya can comrade? i wouldn't mind some good crit.

[–] Hatandwatch@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I suppose if you magnify it so far, but that's seems semantic ultimately.

Certainly a great deal of damage is the excess and inefficiency of global capitalism. With the tenants of central planning we wouldn't need to exploit nearly as much land and resources if we consumed only as much as necessary. But if growth is an endless goal even under communism, why worry about conserving anything now? At some point growth has to be checked, or nature has to be sacrificed.

There's also an argument to be made of over correcting or too much deliberation. If we're always focused on conserving an ecosystem at a chosen level, won't it ultimately stagnate? At what point does the Earth just become a global zoo? When do we pull back and allow systems to change like they always have?

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

yeah i dont really know... was thinking outlou. appreciate your comments cde!

[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

don't appreciate her comments, they're stupid as fuck

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 1 points 4 months ago

Hm what do you mean? I think I missed something, I read it as a general expression (the universal as marx & aristotle puts it) rather than the specific...

Was there another comment or thread I missed? I'm confused bcuz I'm not sure which part is 'stupid'

[–] HelltakerHomosexual@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

girl what in gods fucking name are you talking about we've been cultivating the land around us since we were fucking nomads

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago

As well humans aren't special in the fact that there are apparent macro-changes to our environment. I heard a notable marxist biologist, Richard C. Lewton state that beavers have made more of am impact on the geography and environmental conditions of north america than humans. It was a bit shocking to hear that, but it made sense to me after I thought about it.

I think partially the difference in my understanding and the other commentator's is I don't place the effect of humans to be meaningful in any special way as compared to other mechanisms of changing the environment and climate.

That is, besides our relation to climate change as being a consequence of human activity at a certain stage of development (I mean the base and superstructure here) it need not and indeed is less effective to add qualitative distinctions like "humans are worse" and "we have a responsibility".

Responsibility, yes, and humans are adapting to climate change. Instead of direct-human activity there could have hypothetically been a solar flare from our sun of a particular kind, or gamma ray burst from a nearby dying star which causes a large volcanic erruption such as the kind during the precambian extinction (wiki link) and wiped out human technological development in say the 1800s before major global industrialization began...

We'd still have to deal with it, the why matters insofar as it relates to addressing the problem.

[–] edge@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

How many bacteria have you caused to go extinct?

Literally none.

[–] IzyaKatzmann@hexbear.net 2 points 4 months ago

Maybe a few dozen for me? I think there were some novel mutations in my petri dish in my microbiology lab. I think because I accidentally mixed two different cultures and didn't get a new q-tip. My culture looked way different than my benchmates.

I didn't tell the TAs and it was graded on participation (we were learning how to swab petri dishes).

If you consider strains of as bacteria then yeah I am unfortunately guilty in the name of science... But I'm no graverobber like the relatively (in terms of the profession of healing, as physician was the prior term of art) new 'medical doctor' profession.

Also I do it in the pursuit of knowledge (still not ok) which is better than profit (super not ok, full of contradictions)