Yeah but we literally are changing the planet and affecting other species.
Where does the oxygen in the air your breathe come from? How much biomass is moved every single day in the ocean war between bacteria and bacteriophages? How does the nitrogen you need to survive go from inorganic compounds into biological systems?
We are in no way special when it comes to impacting other species or the Earth as a system.
I think you should chill out bc this was supposed to be a fun discussion, but I’ll give you the same energy back. The fact that you brought up viruses, which aren’t even living organisms, into a debate regarding species tells me all I need to know about your so-called expertise. We can agree to disagree, that way you can save your arrogance for someone who’s impressed. :)
*This is MelonYellow. My server went down with fantastic timing!
I think you should chill out bc this was supposed to be a fun discussion
I have nothing against the post or the discussion. The later comments misinterpreted me. Let me try to put it this way:
While it can be fun and interesting to discuss this topic, this perception of a “dominant species” creates a lot of harm for us working on fields such as environmental evaluation and ecology. People outside of the field can have these faulty notions based on an anthropocentric view of humans and this creates a lot of challenges to very important decisions and work we do. Given how Lemmy is mostly populated from people in the IT field, I wrote a one-liner comment that wanted to point out “there is no dominant species, and any attempt at defining that is flawed” that’s about it.
The rest of the discussion was just based on the replies I got, most of which were doubling down on this attempted claim that humans are dominant.
I have no anger or ill intent towards those that want to try and come up with potential evolutionary paths for ants, octopuses and crows in a post-humanity world.
The fact that you brought up viruses, which aren’t even living organisms
You tell that to a zoologist and they’d happily agree. Call your favorite virologist and they’d want you murdered. Call an evolutionary biologist and they’ll begin a very long explanation that doesn’t fix the definitions but will create peace between both groups. Regardless though, careful with your claims, even if we assume viruses as non-living (like I do) they have well defined species just as a way to facilitate working with them. “Species” is an operational definition, not a natural one.
Because it opens up doing so many different things that impact the world as a whole. Beavers instinctually damn moving water and build homes, but that has been their limited behavior for thousands of years. They don’t expand out and change things even more and more over time like humans do, because they don’t actively choose to do new things that continuously expand their impact.
That intent and conscious decision making by humans to change the world around them is what makes them special.
That intent and conscious decision making by humans to change the world around them is what makes them special.
Sure, that’s what makes us special. I obviously can’t disagree, that’s in fact what originates sociology as a whole, language, and our entire relationship with the world. Now explain why somehow our most important trait makes us dominant from a biological point of view. “Understanding behavior” and changing it over time is important to humans, not important for beavers, what makes beavers special is a completely different set of traits.
There are no “dominant” species. Downvote me all you want, go call your favorite phylogeny professor from whatever university you prefer and ask him to define “dominant species” in a biological sense, share your multiple definitions of “impacting the world as a whole” and “humans are special” and see how long they’ll entertain that phone call.
Now explain why somehow our most important trait makes us dominant from a biological point of view.
It allows us to accomplish far more than would normally occur based on our biological limitations.
Your problem is trying to argue based on an academic definition (that is not universally defined) against the common usage of the word dominant and doing a piss poor job of making that clear. Like when someone uses the lay version of theory and then arguing against it based on the scientific definition of theory without making it clear which one you are using.
Your problem is trying to argue based on an academic definition (that is not universally defined) against the common usage of the word dominant and doing a piss poor job of making that clear.
We are in the “science” community and the post asked which animal will replace humans as Earth’s dominance species. I commented that “dominant species” does not exist in biology.
You people are the ones freaking out over it and trying to come up with a definition. I was speaking about the academic definition from the beginning. But good to hear you finally admit that there is no scientific definition or meaning to this phrase, that was my comment from the beginning. We are done in this discussion then.
Yeah but we literally are changing the planet and affecting other species. We’ve developed nukes that could take out the whole world
Where does the oxygen in the air your breathe come from? How much biomass is moved every single day in the ocean war between bacteria and bacteriophages? How does the nitrogen you need to survive go from inorganic compounds into biological systems?
We are in no way special when it comes to impacting other species or the Earth as a system.
True but we’re one species. This is comparing one species to all the bacteria
Do you want to enter a discussion about the definition of species in rapid multiplying populations of bacteria? Or even viruses for that matter?
I mean, I could, but given how fantastically naive this conversation has been so far, I doubt it would go how you want it to go.
I think you should chill out bc this was supposed to be a fun discussion, but I’ll give you the same energy back. The fact that you brought up viruses, which aren’t even living organisms, into a debate regarding species tells me all I need to know about your so-called expertise. We can agree to disagree, that way you can save your arrogance for someone who’s impressed. :)
*This is MelonYellow. My server went down with fantastic timing!
I have nothing against the post or the discussion. The later comments misinterpreted me. Let me try to put it this way:
While it can be fun and interesting to discuss this topic, this perception of a “dominant species” creates a lot of harm for us working on fields such as environmental evaluation and ecology. People outside of the field can have these faulty notions based on an anthropocentric view of humans and this creates a lot of challenges to very important decisions and work we do. Given how Lemmy is mostly populated from people in the IT field, I wrote a one-liner comment that wanted to point out “there is no dominant species, and any attempt at defining that is flawed” that’s about it.
The rest of the discussion was just based on the replies I got, most of which were doubling down on this attempted claim that humans are dominant.
I have no anger or ill intent towards those that want to try and come up with potential evolutionary paths for ants, octopuses and crows in a post-humanity world.
You tell that to a zoologist and they’d happily agree. Call your favorite virologist and they’d want you murdered. Call an evolutionary biologist and they’ll begin a very long explanation that doesn’t fix the definitions but will create peace between both groups. Regardless though, careful with your claims, even if we assume viruses as non-living (like I do) they have well defined species just as a way to facilitate working with them. “Species” is an operational definition, not a natural one.
We do it on purpose, with intent. Heck, we do it for multiple reasons! We also massively impact all parts of the ecosystem at the same time.
allegedly.
Congrats? I fail to see how “with intent” is somehow relevant.
Because it opens up doing so many different things that impact the world as a whole. Beavers instinctually damn moving water and build homes, but that has been their limited behavior for thousands of years. They don’t expand out and change things even more and more over time like humans do, because they don’t actively choose to do new things that continuously expand their impact.
That intent and conscious decision making by humans to change the world around them is what makes them special.
Sure, that’s what makes us special. I obviously can’t disagree, that’s in fact what originates sociology as a whole, language, and our entire relationship with the world. Now explain why somehow our most important trait makes us dominant from a biological point of view. “Understanding behavior” and changing it over time is important to humans, not important for beavers, what makes beavers special is a completely different set of traits.
There are no “dominant” species. Downvote me all you want, go call your favorite phylogeny professor from whatever university you prefer and ask him to define “dominant species” in a biological sense, share your multiple definitions of “impacting the world as a whole” and “humans are special” and see how long they’ll entertain that phone call.
It allows us to accomplish far more than would normally occur based on our biological limitations.
Your problem is trying to argue based on an academic definition (that is not universally defined) against the common usage of the word dominant and doing a piss poor job of making that clear. Like when someone uses the lay version of theory and then arguing against it based on the scientific definition of theory without making it clear which one you are using.
We are in the “science” community and the post asked which animal will replace humans as Earth’s dominance species. I commented that “dominant species” does not exist in biology.
You people are the ones freaking out over it and trying to come up with a definition. I was speaking about the academic definition from the beginning. But good to hear you finally admit that there is no scientific definition or meaning to this phrase, that was my comment from the beginning. We are done in this discussion then.
You could read the article for their definition of dominant and use it like the rest of us are.