Literally the article parent linked says they're still expected to go extinct but there is a "glimmer of hope." And that's supposed to be adapting nicely?
This comment makes me so, so angry. Like, shouting angry. It's a person who hasn't engaged with a topic AT ALL except to find one headline that downplays the concerns of others. It's the quintessential bad faith comment, created of willful malice or ignorance (and I don't mean that be aggressive, but descriptive).
Which is more true: are you trying to comfort yourself with this comment, or do you find those who work in the name on conservation so loathsome that you'll grasp onto anything to dismissively roll your eyes at them?
Another bad-faith contribution, a snarky comment befitting of a default subreddit. Doesn't even logically build from what I posted, nowhere have I committed the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, but you have made the leap.
And for what? Why? Ideological reasons? A sincerely held belief that the extinction probability of polar bears is dramatically overstated based on some insight that doesn't seem to broadly available?
---
EDIT: this was a poor response to a misunderstood comment
Im actually a Cambrian explosion of anti-human defenses. Allergens, toxins, whatever kills them and drives them indoors, life will adapt and shepherd. Nature is no virgin goddess ravaged by evil industrial mankind - nature can be hard and fast - almost as if life depends on it.
From the article: "Polar bears are still sadly expected to go extinct this century, with two-thirds of the population gone by 2050,"
Literally the article parent linked says they're still expected to go extinct but there is a "glimmer of hope." And that's supposed to be adapting nicely?
You are exaggerating. It is not "adapting nicely" it is "adapting and may not become extinct"
I think it is an interesting point, but its not all OK.
This comment makes me so, so angry. Like, shouting angry. It's a person who hasn't engaged with a topic AT ALL except to find one headline that downplays the concerns of others. It's the quintessential bad faith comment, created of willful malice or ignorance (and I don't mean that be aggressive, but descriptive).
Which is more true: are you trying to comfort yourself with this comment, or do you find those who work in the name on conservation so loathsome that you'll grasp onto anything to dismissively roll your eyes at them?
Why won’t everyone just trust the experts!
Another bad-faith contribution, a snarky comment befitting of a default subreddit. Doesn't even logically build from what I posted, nowhere have I committed the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, but you have made the leap.
And for what? Why? Ideological reasons? A sincerely held belief that the extinction probability of polar bears is dramatically overstated based on some insight that doesn't seem to broadly available?
---
EDIT: this was a poor response to a misunderstood comment
2 replies →
It's called evolution. Unfortunately the rate at which we are changing the climate is causing a mass extinction and die-off event.
In the article it says "does not mean that polar bears are at any less risk of extinction". Doesn't sound like 'adapting nicely' to me.
Im actually a Cambrian explosion of anti-human defenses. Allergens, toxins, whatever kills them and drives them indoors, life will adapt and shepherd. Nature is no virgin goddess ravaged by evil industrial mankind - nature can be hard and fast - almost as if life depends on it.