Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Reminds me of an old adage I heard in high school: If you take the frogs out of the environment, you don't have the same environment minus frogs, you have an entirely new ecosystem.


The classic example is the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone: https://sites.tufts.edu/tuftsgetsgreen/2018/02/27/wolves-cha...


Wolves in Yellowstone are a "keystone species" [1].

A year ago, there was a fascinating episode of "Nature" on PBS about keystone species. It's available for free online streaming here [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystone_species

[2] https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/the-serengeti-rules-41dfru/2...


The sad thing with this "keystone species" concept is that people see it as "oh but this weird insect that's about to go extinct in south-east asia is not a keystone species, so whatever."


True, but it's also good to remember that the new system isn't "worse" or "better" than the old one.

A lot of people seem to think that if you "destroy" an ecosystem it is a step toward a lifeless environment.


We are experiencing this in parts of the ocean - a switch from fishes to jellyfish. One is edible, the other, not so much.

Here's some comments: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/1547.6


In the short term it's reducing the diversity of the ecosystem, yes. And the effect of that tends to pull in quite a bunch of effects that contribute to that effect even more. Only in the long run will there be more diversity again. But by that time we'll all sit in Musk Kingdom on Mars with oxygen masks and radiation suits and legends of ancestors who used to know what a summer breeze at a lake felt like, cause we succeeded to colonize another planet and that was totally worth it!!!11




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: