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.
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.