Second Alexandrian Tragedy.

[Kai]

Badbeast, you are delving waaaay deep into this.  

Yeah, I know, but it's fun. And a bit "Planet of the Apesy"  
But I agree that natural selection is stupid. If natural selection was the primary dynamic, then why do we carry around so much 'inert' DNA? Might as well call it "Natural De-selection". Or "Survival of the fattest". Or say that life in the Sea evolves around  "survival of the buoyant". 

A) a great deal of that junk DNA is either parasitic (from viruses and bacteria), or promoter regions that bind to transcription factors and regulate gene transcription rates.

B) The term Natural Selection was chosen to compare and contrast it with Artificial Selection, i.e. what humans do to domestic animals. The misunderstanding is that it indicates some sort of progress, while there is nothing about it that does so. Variation is eliminated by failure to reproduce. This means the variation in populations and species will change over time. The result is eventual population divergence and cladogenesis (branching off of new species and lineages), otherwise known as evolution. "Survival of the fittest" is a term you should slash from your mind, a popular phrase by a Darwin contemporary. It is misleading.

If you want a "survival of the ___" phrase, try "Survival of whatever works". 

[BadBeast]

I know "Survival of the fittest" is totally fail, it wasn't a typo when I said "Survival of the fattest" as a comparable term. But do we know for sure that viral DNA is always detrimental?  I mean, I think the idea of benign viral strains is too awesome to dimiss. Imagine a virus that would swim about in our systems, patching damage up, and reinforcing our own immune systems instead of bolloxing stuff up like flu. Something with specific and selective reproductive conditions, that behaved like a magic bullet, renewing old cells, or bullying malignant cells into behaving properly.

[Triple Zero]

Hm. I get the idea, but let me extend this analogy a tiny bit further.

If it was just books, and keeping them around, you'd just scan them or hand them over to archive.org to preserve just the data in a way that survives the ages or something (they're pretty good at that, over there).

But these are living things. Not even that, they're species, you need a bunch of them, just like you need at least 6 H2O molecules to make something that behaves like water.

It's more like these ancient medieval manuscripts written on crumbly paper that all need their own pressure-sensitive humidity controlled climate room to survive in.

Except medieval manuscripts are comparatively easy to preserve in a proper state.

That's where this analogy falls apart for me. I'll immediately agree that yes this is very important data, so back it the fuck up already! Like I bet this old Library of Alexandria must have easily fitted on a 8GB memory card.

Except where that process (if we'd travel back in time before it got burned, with a bunch of scanners and photocopy machines) would probably take no more than a couple of years if you'd really work on it, and just wanted to make sure you extracted 99.99% of the most important data before it goes up in flames.

Unfortunately, in biology this doesn't hold up.

You can't just sequence the DNA and assume you got all the info that's in there. In fact we know that you won't.

They're not so much like ancient manuscripts. At least there you'd know that most of the important information content you'd like to know about them are contained in the shapes of ink squiggles on pieces of plant matter.

These biological information carriers are much more alien. You don't know. You need a full catalogue of all the complex chemicals and proteins it's made up of. But you also need a full description of how this object interacts with other objects that are near it. And the shape. And the configuration and structure.

You can't just "scan" them. Or perhaps just freeze a specimen or two. It's not enough, you gotta keep em around and living otherwise the precious information is lost.

So no it's not like a library, not at all. It's more like a zoo. Oh that's exactly what it is!

[BadBeast]

Yeah but the point I was making, is that maybe we don't have to scan them, log them, and freeze a specimen or two, it's just part of our routine to think that we must. Another part of the Macro environment takes care of all that, and the whole system is actually working as efficiently as it ever was. It did OK before we'd even learned to walk upright,  and I dare say there would be enough DNA data knocking around in one form or another to start from scratch if the system has to reformat and re-install again. Our view of our own importance in it all, might be disproportionately large, as part of the pre-programmed options our species carries in it's DNA coding. Like the bit in Max Payne, when he's high on Valkyr, and suddenly realises he's a two dimensional character in a video game. And suddenly all the stuff that was puzzling him falls into place. The slo mo showing off of his combat moves, the feeling he had no control over his destiny, the feeling he was being watched by something he could never quite see. The cliched internal dialogue, etc. Then as the drug wears off, the fourth wall is rebuilt, and he turns back into predictable old Max again.

[Triple Zero]

But what I'm getting from Kai's sense of urgency is that the whole system is in fact NOT working as it should because humans are fucking it up. And on the assumption of free will, we could choose not to.

Except my argument is that choosing not to, and preserving all this shit, is not at all like preserving a library full of ancient manuscripts. Not to mention comparing it to simply deciding not to burn it down (can you put out the fire that keeps you warm?).

At least museum archives preserving manuscripts get to take shortcuts. Photograph all of the pages, humidity-controlled-room preserve a couple of them in case someone ever wants to chemically determine what inks were used or some such. You don't need all books for that.

Comparing it to burning down a library or not, makes it sounds a LOT easier than it actually is.




and yeah life will go on whether we fuck it up or not--although depending on how FAR back we'll fuck it up, how many times can the Earth still grow a new civilisation, assuming that it'll take about as long as it took for us? I mean, before the sun stops working and all that?

Two or three times?

What if the intelligent bipedal cockroaches that'll come after us also don't manage to colonize space? And what if the gas-propelled sponges that come after them also won't make the space jump?

Then maybe life on Earth will do its thing and in a few billion years it'll stop and we never get a Star Trek Federation or an Asimov Foundation or Dyson Spheres or time travel or all that fun stuff.

[BadBeast]

But what I'm getting from Kai's sense of urgency is that the whole system is in fact NOT working as it should because humans are fucking it up. And on the assumption of free will, we could choose not to.

Except my argument is that choosing not to, and preserving all this shit, is not at all like preserving a library full of ancient manuscripts. Not to mention comparing it to simply deciding not to burn it down (can you put out the fire that keeps you warm?).

At least museum archives preserving manuscripts get to take shortcuts. Photograph all of the pages, humidity-controlled-room preserve a couple of them in case someone ever wants to chemically determine what inks were used or some such. You don't need all books for that.

Comparing it to burning down a library or not, makes it sounds a LOT easier than it actually is.




and yeah life will go on whether we fuck it up or not--although depending on how FAR back we'll fuck it up, how many times can the Earth still grow a new civilisation, assuming that it'll take about as long as it took for us? I mean, before the sun stops working and all that?

Two or three times?

What if the intelligent bipedal cockroaches that'll come after us also don't manage to colonize space? And what if the gas-propelled sponges that come after them also won't make the space jump?

Then maybe life on Earth will do its thing and in a few billion years it'll stop and we never get a Star Trek Federation or an Asimov Foundation or Dyson Spheres or time travel or all that fun stuff.

Well if you put it like that, then  . . . . . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9Pp_oaa_4U

[Worm Rider]

Let me try again.

You are an organism on a planet full of organisms -living systems of matter that acquire materials and energy and respond to their environment in order to reproduce and maintain themselves as functioning systems. There are so many different kinds we still are only guessing at the number, and they take on all kinds of weird forms, mostly small single cells. You share an evolutionary lineage with them, i.e. you are related, and the same genes that direct your continued existence direct theirs as well, at the most fundamental and basic level.

The question is this: how should we prioritize efforts to avoid permanently and irrevocably eliminating groups of organisms which share a common ability to interbreed with each other based on genetic similarity and reproductive compatibility? If we can use these groups of organisms that we label "species" as sources of information, like books, should we prioritize their preservation more, or less? If species are not useful as sources of information, should we place a lower priority on their conservation?

I think we should keep them around because they are kind of cool. I think they are cool because I am fascinated by them, because it is interesting -which depends on them serving as sources of information. However, the only reason I value them as sources of information is because emotionally, that's what gets me excited, brings joy to my life.

I'm interested in getting to the bottom of the thought experiment though. Do we place value on species because they serve as sources of information? Are species less valuable if they do not?

[Triple Zero]

Well, you can't keep all of them around anyway. Even if you be all hyper sustainable and shit. Not saying we shouldn't try, but "I think we should keep them around" is not an answer to the questions you pose.

The problem (as Kai describes in the OP) is that biodiversity is plummeting like a spontaneously materialized sperm whale at 10,000ft height.

I wonder if it's possible to stop it, though.

I'd rather first work on not making this planet unliveable for humans within this century, climate-wise, and if we manage that, conserving biodiversity (what's left) should be within reasonable reach. I believe if we actually survive the next 100 years as a species, we might have a reasonable chance of colonizing some planet or other, and then we're pretty much solid, I hope.

[BadBeast]

Looking at it from the other end of the human 'equation' maybe our genome is such a special combination, it's actually prudent for the macro-program to invest so much of it's resources in ensuring we survive, because of our totally awesome potential. And if it has to shut a few functions down, it's quite prepared to do so. If the price of getting us off the planet, is that we actually consume four fifths of it's available resources, that's a result all round isn't it? We get to trek off to the stars with our potential, and the planet gets an environment conducive to bringing it's next project along.

[Triple Zero]

Looking at it from the other end of the human 'equation' maybe our genome is such a special combination, it's actually prudent for the macro-program to invest so much of it's resources in ensuring we survive, because of our totally awesome potential. And if it has to shut a few functions down, it's quite prepared to do so. If the price of getting us off the planet, is that we actually consume four fifths of it's available resources, that's a result all round isn't it? We get to trek off to the stars with our potential, and the planet gets an environment conducive to bringing it's next project along.

Fuck yeah.

Also we're gonna need real lightbulbs in outer space, none of those eco friendly stupid fluorescent non-dimmable fucking things, and wild tuna marinaded in dolphin blood.

BRB, dumping motor oil in the toilet.

(Oops, I stepped on an endangered puppy that was in my way)

[Kai]

I know "Survival of the fittest" is totally fail, it wasn't a typo when I said "Survival of the fattest" as a comparable term. But do we know for sure that viral DNA is always detrimental?  I mean, I think the idea of benign viral strains is too awesome to dimiss. Imagine a virus that would swim about in our systems, patching damage up, and reinforcing our own immune systems instead of bolloxing stuff up like flu. Something with specific and selective reproductive conditions, that behaved like a magic bullet, renewing old cells, or bullying malignant cells into behaving properly.

We have no idea if viral junk DNA has any function whatsoever. We barely have noticed that there may be viral components to junk DNA in the first place. It's a strong point of attack for future researchers.

[Kai]

Hm. I get the idea, but let me extend this analogy a tiny bit further.

If it was just books, and keeping them around, you'd just scan them or hand them over to archive.org to preserve just the data in a way that survives the ages or something (they're pretty good at that, over there).

But these are living things. Not even that, they're species, you need a bunch of them, just like you need at least 6 H2O molecules to make something that behaves like water.

It's more like these ancient medieval manuscripts written on crumbly paper that all need their own pressure-sensitive humidity controlled climate room to survive in.

Except medieval manuscripts are comparatively easy to preserve in a proper state.

That's where this analogy falls apart for me. I'll immediately agree that yes this is very important data, so back it the fuck up already! Like I bet this old Library of Alexandria must have easily fitted on a 8GB memory card.

Except where that process (if we'd travel back in time before it got burned, with a bunch of scanners and photocopy machines) would probably take no more than a couple of years if you'd really work on it, and just wanted to make sure you extracted 99.99% of the most important data before it goes up in flames.

Unfortunately, in biology this doesn't hold up.

You can't just sequence the DNA and assume you got all the info that's in there. In fact we know that you won't.

They're not so much like ancient manuscripts. At least there you'd know that most of the important information content you'd like to know about them are contained in the shapes of ink squiggles on pieces of plant matter.

These biological information carriers are much more alien. You don't know. You need a full catalogue of all the complex chemicals and proteins it's made up of. But you also need a full description of how this object interacts with other objects that are near it. And the shape. And the configuration and structure.

You can't just "scan" them. Or perhaps just freeze a specimen or two. It's not enough, you gotta keep em around and living otherwise the precious information is lost.

So no it's not like a library, not at all. It's more like a zoo. Oh that's exactly what it is!

I think you may be taking the the book metaphor too literally, but I'll run with this. Yes, the problem with the matter is that you can't just scan a bunch of specimens into the computer. Organisms are n-dimentional hypersets of information, and our understanding of that hyperset is constantly growing. They're MAGIC books, okay, does that work? The problem of a race against time still stands. Also, natural history collections preserve a great deal of this information as publication archives and physical specimens. Millions of them. Not the same as a living species, but much better than having nothing.

[Kai]

But what I'm getting from Kai's sense of urgency is that the whole system is in fact NOT working as it should because humans are fucking it up. And on the assumption of free will, we could choose not to.

Except my argument is that choosing not to, and preserving all this shit, is not at all like preserving a library full of ancient manuscripts. Not to mention comparing it to simply deciding not to burn it down (can you put out the fire that keeps you warm?).

At least museum archives preserving manuscripts get to take shortcuts. Photograph all of the pages, humidity-controlled-room preserve a couple of them in case someone ever wants to chemically determine what inks were used or some such. You don't need all books for that.

Comparing it to burning down a library or not, makes it sounds a LOT easier than it actually is.




and yeah life will go on whether we fuck it up or not--although depending on how FAR back we'll fuck it up, how many times can the Earth still grow a new civilisation, assuming that it'll take about as long as it took for us? I mean, before the sun stops working and all that?

Two or three times?

What if the intelligent bipedal cockroaches that'll come after us also don't manage to colonize space? And what if the gas-propelled sponges that come after them also won't make the space jump?

Then maybe life on Earth will do its thing and in a few billion years it'll stop and we never get a Star Trek Federation or an Asimov Foundation or Dyson Spheres or time travel or all that fun stuff.

The system is working just fine. What's not going to be working, is /humans/. Or possibly just living in biodiversity poverty for the next several million years because we were too stupid to preserve our biological heritage for our own benefit. All those unknowns never to be known. It's not like physics, or chemistry, or even cell theory. Cells aren't going anywhere, the laws of physics aren't going anywhere, the fucking STARS aren't going anywhere. But if we send diversity back to the Permian, then it's GONE. No second chances. That information is lost. The emotional appeal would be "extinction means forever", cue the depression music.

[Triple Zero]

I think you may be taking the the book metaphor too literally, but I'll run with this. Yes, the problem with the matter is that you can't just scan a bunch of specimens into the computer. Organisms are n-dimentional hypersets of information, and our understanding of that hyperset is constantly growing. They're MAGIC books, okay, does that work? The problem of a race against time still stands. Also, natural history collections preserve a great

deal of this information as publication archives and physical specimens. Millions of them. Not the same as a living species, but much better than having nothing.

Yes. I was just trying to describe how hard it would be to preserve such a "hyperbook" of information, besides keeping it alive in its ecosystem.

I mean it's not even just the species itself, its interactions with the environment could have valuable information as well.

So how to do it?

Either get lost as the human species and live and let live the rest of them, or try to save ourselves, deal with the biodiversity poverty somehow, and from that foundation of sustainability try to sorta regrow?

[Worm Rider]

I think you may be taking the the book metaphor too literally, but I'll run with this. Yes, the problem with the matter is that you can't just scan a bunch of specimens into the computer. Organisms are n-dimentional hypersets of information, and our understanding of that hyperset is constantly growing. They're MAGIC books, okay, does that work? The problem of a race against time still stands. Also, natural history collections preserve a great

deal of this information as publication archives and physical specimens. Millions of them. Not the same as a living species, but much better than having nothing.

Yes. I was just trying to describe how hard it would be to preserve such a "hyperbook" of information, besides keeping it alive in its ecosystem.

I mean it's not even just the species itself, its interactions with the environment could have valuable information as well.

So how to do it?

Either get lost as the human species and live and let live the rest of them, or try to save ourselves, deal with the biodiversity poverty somehow, and from that foundation of sustainability try to sorta regrow?

Ecological interactions define not just the information available, but the very identity of species, including humans. We are not separate entities from the rest of the world, both living and non-living. If we kill off a bunch of species and/or move to another planet, it will fundamentally change who we are as humans.

I think we know how. We certainly know enough to stop the majority of the damage we are doing. The problem is making conservation a priority.