Last semester I took a survey course in Anthropology. Extinction events were sprinkled into discussion through-out the course, a main point being that they are inevitabilities from the perspective of "deep time." My thoughts never failed to meander in the concept: 'Geez, I wonder what that will look like when the next one hits.' or some small prayer of thanks that I haven't had to and hopefully won't witness one. But reading this bit spoke volumes on the contrary to my thoughts. Ah, man. This was so well put. In my view, the de-extinction initiatives are nigh naive, albeit the epitome of human innovation. Breathing life back into that which is dead, leaving it less and less space to live out its second life is only to allow us to relive and outlast its life for a second time around. If I didn't know any better, then I'd say it an childish attempt to take back what we've lost in an utmost unproductive form of grieving. But I do know better. So I won't say that. As is my nature, I'm of a mind to think the only course of action is to observe and let time guide us to seeing how it all resolves - if science or our tale even yields "resolutions" in Mankind's epic biography. I'm exceedingly curious to know what is to come en masse. If I had the ability to slap on a community tag, then I'd throw up a #thehumancondition. Alas, my time has yet to come! Phenomenal read. Thank you for sharing. :)But even for people less intimate with him did his life and demise serve as a reminder of the mass extinction of species currently underway—the sixth in earth’s history but the only one caused by humans.
I would love to know woolly mammoths were lumbering across Siberia again. But some proponents of de-extinction act as if existence is the only problem these species face. De-extinction alone does not address the causes of extinction, the condition of habitats, or the quality of species’ lives. We cannot refreeze the Arctic tundra, former home of the woolly mammoth, nor can we postpone the arrival of spring, which climate change impels to come earlier every year. We cannot resurrect the cold snap that once prevented the mountain pine beetle from destroying northern forests. There is no satisfactory way to wipe the record clean.
I don't know better. I was just about to write that. Could you enlighten me about what I'm missing? She made the point that guilt can lead to action, but is it productive action to bring back extinct species? The rest of the article really meandered from placebos to determinism. Those topics are large controversial topics in themselves. Putting them together made the whole reading ambiguous.If I didn't know any better, then I'd say it an childish attempt to take back what we've lost in an utmost unproductive form of grieving. But I do know better. So I won't say that.
With regard to anything you're missing: actually, nothing. I, subjectively, agree with you here. My not knowing any better is just speaking to the fact that posting my belief here wouldn't do too much in the way of making progress against this silly endeavor, rather than harboring some secret knowledge about the project. My interpretation of this bit was her tying in other causes of motive alongside wrestling with contradictory, yet prevailing schools of thought that we as humans have developed over time. I swear I had some interesting idea tying into Calvinism and determinism that related back to the article.... seems I lost it. But, hey, you win some and you lose some, eh? Could you enlighten me about what I'm missing? She made the point that guilt can lead to action, but is it productive action to bring back extinct species?
She made the point that guilt can lead to action, but is it productive action to bring back extinct species? The rest of the article really meandered from placebos to determinism.
Got it. Thanks for the explanation. That does sound interesting. If you remember it again, I hope you share it. Those are huge concepts.With regard to anything you're missing: actually, nothing. I, subjectively, agree with you here. My not knowing any better is just speaking to the fact that posting my belief here wouldn't do too much in the way of making progress against this silly endeavor, rather than harboring some secret knowledge about the project.
I swear I had some interesting idea tying into Calvinism and determinism that related back to the article.... seems I lost it. But, hey, you win some and you lose some, eh?
Oye. Searching for this post post-username change was a little annoying... probably aided by my thinking this was shared by francopoli instead of flags. So, it must have really been a good idea seeing as it's been bothering me for the better parts of two months, according to the count. It's a bit tragic since I still don't remember exactly what it was, especially so since I'm not inundated with topical info from the lecture I had just had on the topic of Calvinism/determinism when I wrote the initial comment. Further, I can't say I'm even in the same mindset I was, since reading through the piece, I'm not resonating with it as much. But, seeing as it's been bothering me this long, I may as well honor it and try to put it to rest. The piece in and of itself has its own form of plot progression. The end of which has a resolution of "but we're in the driver's seat now"/uplifting or hopeful note. Yet, the majority of it is filled with Calvinistic inferences of humanities depravity in driving its species into isolation on Earth. There seem to be a bit of citations around the climax regarding future perspectives, sad reflections of personal convictions and/or alien perspective regarding some loathing or tragic aspect of humanity, which are inherently laden with subjective bias of limitation to only human experience - I'm banking on none of those quoted having been to the future or have lived as another species to regard our own with some special knowledge. Of course, the point being part of the author's thesis or tying into the idea of human guilt. To pay it a bit more mind, the narrative's diction in and of itself circle about inferences/themes to some degree of uneasiness, loss, or outright shame by humanity's hand. In truth, this seems a bit more like some sort of ramble at my part so far, so I'll cut this short where I can in attempt to tie it all back. The piece looks more like an evolution of what we've seen in some philosophies of who's in the drivers seat, up until now. The evolution reflecting back onto mankind's imprint on the world. Personally, I think the end is a bit more of an obligatory pick-me-up of today's writing. The piece strings together the elements of 'total depravity' and 'determinism' (more-so explicitly) found in Calvinistic tenets. Damn wish I had the memory to remember whatever that string of thoughts once was. BTW, much appreciated whoever went back and slapped on #thehumancondition as a community tag as requested. :)But, hey, you win some and you lose some, eh?