[SkittyDog]

Honestly trying to clarify... Are you aware that altering existing, stable ecosystems has potentially massive, unpredictable, long-term costs that other humans will have to pay, potentially far outweighing any of the economic benefits of the original human interference?

This is pretty basic history, with endless examples of human societies that took short-term gains by screwing with ecosystems for more complex than they could understand... Only to leave behind horrific costs for their descendants and neighbors? And that some of those costs proved so high that they wiped out the societies that came up short, when the bill came due?

Are you aware of the countless famines, wars, wildfires, floods, and other disasters that happened as a result? Do you know the body counts of these choices?

If you're honestly just ignorant of all this history, I'm gonna suggest that you start by reading Mark Reisner's masterwork:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert

And then maybe follow it up with Jared Diamond:

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choo...

If you can at least digest those, whether you agree or disagree with their theses--then I think we'll be ready to have a useful discussion about the wisdom of human interference in existing stable ecosystems.

[jonnycomputer]

Also, honestly, Jared Diamond? you can do so much better than that.

[jonnycomputer]

Lay off skittyboo; doesn't seem like you are "honestly" trying to clarify anything.

Have you considered that you might be making a wildly inaccurate assumption that island ecology tends toward homeostasis? Does it bother you so much that someone might believe that disruption and wild fluctuation might be much more typical of ecosystems, even without the intervention of Homo sapiens sapiens?

[SkittyDog]

So was your original post in bad faith, or not?

Your question has an obvious, widely accepted answer... Whether that answer is right or wrong, your failure to reference it comes off as deliberately provocative.

And by your response, it seema pretty obvious: Yes, you knew full well the answer before you sarcastically asked your orignal question.

If you ask questions in bad faith, using an argumentative tone--then why are you surprised when I respond to you in the same fashion?

If you want better replies, you should try writing a better post, in the first place.

[jonnycomputer]

Bad faith? You are asking whether my comment was intended to deceive? No, it was not. It was lazy, and nothing more than that.

[SkittyDog]

No, you misunderstand... by "bad faith" I meant that your original comment was not intended as an earnest, respectful, positive contribution.

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, under the section "In Comments" (halfway down)...

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

...

> Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.

...

> Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.