3 ms·

If we aren't making the world better for people, what are we doing it for? How can the objective 'make the world better for people' be immoral? Its a zero sum g

If we aren't making the world better for people, what are we doing it for? How can the objective 'make the world better for people' be immoral? Its a zero sum game, every dollar and man-hour spent preserving the Laotian spotted dung beetle could have been spent helping improve the lives of people. I'm not trying to argue their isn't value in the nature, aesthetically, recreationally, scientifically, etc. but these are points that need to be weighted against the human cost of preservation not 'let them eat cake' platitudes.

7952 9y ago
All sides invariably believe that what they are proposing is in the best interest of humanity. The environment is tricky because there are so many things that you would ideally not want to put into conflict with one another. Just look at the debate over herbicide use in farming. You have to balance the livelihood of farmers, the health of insects, food supply, human health etc. I don't think there is a single simple answer to that question. That is why it becomes a political and moral question. That is the process that we use for answering difficult contraversial questions. And the solutions inevitably have benefit and costs to different people.
- thereisnospork 9y ago
  > You have to balance the livelihood of farmers, the health of insects, food supply, human health etc. This is the role that money serves in society. If the greater we can't or won't pay a Brazilian to not cut down a bit of rainforest - it literally wasn't worth saving. (because the collective we would rather have the hardwood/farmland).
austincheney 9y ago
> If we aren't making the world better for people, what are we doing it for? The reason they are so motivated is for fear of biodiversity loss. The concern is that once something is lost it cannot be recovered. The second and third order consequences are that habitats are complex things that depend upon a certain level of diversity to continue to perpetuate. Diverse habitats are necessary for resource extraction, some weather phenomena, medical discoveries, and continue biological research. On one hand all these arguments are entirely valid propositions. Like climate science the science is very real with great research and there are orders of magnitude of complexity that people have yet to fully appreciate. After that there are progressively extreme slippery slope arguments to prevent change out of fear of the unknown whether not those fears are validated. I am not stating any opinion for or against but merely answering your question of why. Most people are not scientists and lack any amount of objectivity, and so the neutrality of basic science concepts are hard to grasp for many people. Science generally comes in only two flavors: research and experimentation. Policy recommendations are politics. Science and politics are distinctively separate qualities. For the non-scientist this is an impossibly hard thing to accept. Whether or not a given set of science is important for (insert any value qualifier here) does not make it any more or less scientific.

7952 9y ago

All sides invariably believe that what they are proposing is in the best interest of humanity. The environment is tricky because there are so many things that you would ideally not want to put into conflict with one another. Just look at the debate over herbicide use in farming. You have to balance the livelihood of farmers, the health of insects, food supply, human health etc. I don't think there is a single simple answer to that question. That is why it becomes a political and moral question. That is the process that we use for answering difficult contraversial questions. And the solutions inevitably have benefit and costs to different people.

thereisnospork 9y ago
> You have to balance the livelihood of farmers, the health of insects, food supply, human health etc. This is the role that money serves in society. If the greater we can't or won't pay a Brazilian to not cut down a bit of rainforest - it literally wasn't worth saving. (because the collective we would rather have the hardwood/farmland).

austincheney 9y ago

> If we aren't making the world better for people, what are we doing it for? The reason they are so motivated is for fear of biodiversity loss. The concern is that once something is lost it cannot be recovered. The second and third order consequences are that habitats are complex things that depend upon a certain level of diversity to continue to perpetuate. Diverse habitats are necessary for resource extraction, some weather phenomena, medical discoveries, and continue biological research. On one hand all these arguments are entirely valid propositions. Like climate science the science is very real with great research and there are orders of magnitude of complexity that people have yet to fully appreciate. After that there are progressively extreme slippery slope arguments to prevent change out of fear of the unknown whether not those fears are validated. I am not stating any opinion for or against but merely answering your question of why. Most people are not scientists and lack any amount of objectivity, and so the neutrality of basic science concepts are hard to grasp for many people. Science generally comes in only two flavors: research and experimentation. Policy recommendations are politics. Science and politics are distinctively separate qualities. For the non-scientist this is an impossibly hard thing to accept. Whether or not a given set of science is important for (insert any value qualifier here) does not make it any more or less scientific.