2 ms·
The dichotomy that I'm pointing out is not that people are "all for deserts" vs "all against deserts", you misunderstood my position. I'm pointing out a false d
by oneloop 10y ago
The dichotomy that I'm pointing out is not that people are "all for deserts" vs "all against deserts", you misunderstood my position. I'm pointing out a false dichotomy which is "all for environmental preservation" vs the position that "all environmental conditions are irrelevant".
- dogma1138 10y agoAgain this is like being "pro-bear" but not wanting a bear to come out and maul your children at the playground. And one good way of ensuring that the bears don't come out and play is by not destroying their natural habitats. I don't know what false dichotomy you are trying to point out but it doesn't exist, no serious preservationist or environmental scientists saying "all for X". We want to preserve what we can do not cause further needless destruction and degradation in the biodiversity of our ecosystem. Many environmental problems including desertification are cause by us destroying natural habitats including deserts. If you have a desert more or less contained in its "natural" state providing a habitat to multiple species do what you can to preserve it. If you have man accelerated desertification that is threatening to turn your arable land into sand dunes within the next 5 decades you should do what you can to slow it down, stop it, and then reverse it. The only way of fighting desertification seems to be now to actually try to revert the damage you've done to the natural barriers and local environment in the first place. Sand dunes that have had migration patterns of barely a CM per year now migrating at rates of a few meters per year are not a "natural" state.
- oneloop 10y agoMy response was carefully tuned to respond to pyre, not you, so I don't feel the need to reply to this. Just politely letting you know...