It’s a function of current situation on earth. Humans are dominant, and any diversity which will survive should challenge status quo
Biodiversity (antifragility) is definitely valuable; conservation is important and makes sense. But why do we stop there? Why don’t we more intentionally try to generate novel diversity?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Gene-editing?
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Existing biodiversity has established itself through millions of years of co-evolution. In New Zealand we battle with invasive species that compete and wipeout species that have not evolved to deal with that environmental stress.
-
Which, perhaps unintuitively, leads to species extinction and a decrease in biodiversity.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I like the way you are thinking. But this is basically what we have been doing with agriculture for thousands of years. And dogs are an extreme example - all that diversity from a single species (unless they were domesticated more than once).
-
I imagine you might be referring instead to inducing more diversity in the natural world...I’m not sure how you would do that, but it’s intriguing.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Every form of life on earth has adapted to their niche environment and co-exist well with one another. Novel species by creation might not be able to survive many generations in natural environment or could become invasive which subsequently reduce natural diversity,imho.
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"what is the ideal amount of diversity?" may be the wrong question
-
What is the right question?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this info to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.