12 ms·

I never understood why such changes -- dramatic as they may be -- were seen as a cause of concern, except in cases where the changes affected our food supply.

• emodendroket 8y ago
  Well I suppose the most pressing problem is that we will create conditions such that we ourselves are not longer able to survive, or at least some significant portion of us will not. Rising sea levels and increased extreme weather events will also cause substantial financial loss, even if you don't care about the loss of natural wonders.
• saiya-jin 8y ago
  Well yeah, stuff goes extinct all the time, but on scale of millions/tens of millions of years. the pace we're seeing these days is unprecedented and the pace is more on level of mass extinction rather than business-as-usual evolution state. Sure, we can keep looking at the half-full glass focusing what is not extinct yet, but over few generations, we might be pretty lonely on this planet when it comes to complex life. It's more an indication of how badly we're screwing our own environment, also for ourselves. It's clear that life itself will survive much harsher situations compared to mankind and repopulate once we're long extinct.
• antocv 8y ago
  > but isn't that how Nature works? Nature has encountered countless extinctions before us (where's the Megalodon now?) and at least 5 mass extinctions, so why should this dynamic cease now? This mass extinction caused by humans is an order of magnitude faster and affects far more varity of species and plants.
  • ckastner 8y ago
    Even if that were true (and I'd challenge the variety of species and plants, see [1]): what, objectively, is the problem with that? Furthermore, even if the pace and breadth of current extinction were that dramatic, isn't the argument against that a purely emotional one? I sincerely doubt that most humans can even name a hundred species; would they really miss a few million if a few million others remained? Just to be clear again: I'm not arguing against conservationism, I'm interested in the arguments being made for it. I believe we are conserving for own selfish purposes, and I'm perfectly OK with that. I just think it's wrong to call that "natural". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extin...
    • antocv 8y ago
      The problem with that is, its an unknown, the effects could be far more devastating than previous mass extinctions, even the worst one about 252 million years ago. If you extrapolate the speed of current devastation, extinction and let it play out over the time-span of the last mass-extinction, there really wont be anything living on earth besides micro-organisms. Non-selfish arguments for why we should not kill off other species? Why should we not kill all life bigger than a pea on earth? Ill let you take that one.
    • samdoidge 8y ago
      It's a hugely worrying trend. If it continues, a potential outcome is no other species exist. There are medicinal and practical uses for plants, and some are have only recently been discovered. Losing them is losing this these potential discoveries and uses. Humans inherently enjoy nature. We like to see trees, greenery , wildlife. The loss of these things hurts our enjoyment of the world.
    • mockingbirdy 8y ago
      > what, objectively, is the problem with that? Nothing. But you can say that about asteroids that kill the planet as well. That's basically nihilism. Many people want to live and enjoy nature, that's why. We just got conflicting interests of short-term thinking that resembles nihilism (Nothing matters - let's live life to the fullest) and long-term thinking / delayed gratification (I want my kids / all the animals / the next generation to have a nice life as well). edit: for the semantics of "natural" - humans can be seen as a part of nature. It's just intellectual gymnastics if one defines us as natural or not. Some say humans aren't natural and have good reasons for it, some say they are and have good reasons for that. This discussion really isn't that meaningful. Many peole say we have responsibility because we have consciousness, but even that could be argued. It all depends on what you believe.
• skrebbel 8y ago
  I know very little about ecology, but my understanding is that lots of insects, including but not only bees, are key to plant reproduction. Maybe my math is wrong, but fewer insects probably implies fewer plants, with a delay. Given that I'd like to survive and all, I'd like there to be plants so I can eat them. And breathe air and whatnot.
  • ckastner 8y ago
    I already conceded the survability aspect ("except in cases where the changes affected our food supply").
• jaggederest 8y ago
  Conservationism is about conserving a place in the world where humans can survive, full stop. It's not just food, it's disease, it's mycology, it's everything, and if we're not careful, we will render the planet uninhabitable for naked apes. You're right, in the sense that of course the tardigrades, archaea around deep ocean vents, and blue-green algae will continue trucking along more or less whatever happens. We, however, are not tardigrades.
• Steve44 8y ago
  I sometimes get a little irritated at some of the "save the planet" type arguments. The planet will be just fine, it's gone through a lot of changes over the years and will continue to go through changes. One example I often show is the sea levels 16,000 BC as explained here https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/ https://www.nationalgeographic.org/maps/doggerland/ by National Geographic. What is going to have problems is the health of the ever growing Human population. Us Humans may well be heading towards a crisis, the planet won't even notice. BTW, I think we should be working hard to support a sustainable future for Humanity and the rest of the environment.
  • TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    The most charitable reading of ”save the planet” is: save those parts of the biosphere that might be critical to our long term survival.
    • jaggederest 8y ago
      The problem with that, though, is that you can't just saw those parts off and tuck them away. Cascading failure of systems is a global phenomenon.
  • emodendroket 8y ago
    That seems to be an almost willfully obtuse reading. Yes, obviously, Earth in some form will continue to exist whether we do anything about pollution or not.
    • Steve44 8y ago
      Yes you could see it like that but my thoughts are more we are in one of the many phases the planet goes though and it is part of evolution. I still don't want it to happen any time soon, or at all really, but have an acceptance of our transient time here.
      • emodendroket 8y ago
• sametmax 8y ago
  Because we depend on biodiversity to survive. It's what allows animals to not be wiped out by only one super parasite. It's what allow plants to bread so that they get robust and nutritious. It's what allow all our bodies to not be vulnerable to only one disease and all die. It also supports the balance of all the ecosystems: forests, seas, rivers... Which we also depend on to survive. It's what makes us live on a beautiful, comfortable planet instead of survive in a terraformed rock we have to fight against while rushing to the next scientific way to palliate yet a new deficiency. In our planet system, everything is connected. Let's take a very naive but simple to understand example, the tomatoe. Planting so much, and always the same kind of tomatoes makes the land nutritionally poor and the plant susceptible to parasites. We compensate this unnatural state by addition artificial nutrition and pesticides to the plant. The result ? Most tomatoes are tasteless garbage that looks more like a plastic ball than a fruit. Their nutritional content has been divided by 10 during the last 80 years, so that you need to eat much more to remotely get the same minerals and vitamins. When you eat them, you also absorb a small amount of all the products we put on them, with consequences we still don't know about. That's just for a simple tomato. Bring together all the food, the water, the air, the temperature, etc. together, and that's how much we are disturbing. It's not just emotional. We are seated on branch we are sawing.
• wonderwonder 8y ago
  From a purely objective concern, if the a perfect storm of global warming, pollution, massively reduced fish stocks, elimination of pollinators and ocean oxygen depletion run to their end game, humanity will suffer decimation. Due to nutrient pollution of the ocean, large dead zones are spreading, these are zones without enough oxygen to support life caused by nitrogen and phosphorous pollution. 70% of the earths oxygen is produced by marine plants. Forests produce most of the rest and we are cutting them down at an accelerating rate. So from an objective point of view, not enough oxygen is a pragmatic cause for concern. Looking at it from the perspective of nature, species evolve to survive, it is their prime directive. We are actually doing a pretty good job of working against this directive to our species own detriment.
• soundwave106 8y ago
  Others are making the good general case argument, but I will add one other thing: sometimes there's actually some very positive "side benefits" that you get from having a biodiverse ecosystem around, that you may not initially think about as far as the general conservation case is concerned. Examples that come to mind immediately include the huge number of medicines that have been derived by isolating compounds derived from plants, an area which we are probably far from done exploring. Another more specific case I can think of, is how one of the most important compounds in molecular biology today (Taq polymerase) came from bacteria found in the Lower Geyser Basin at Yellowstone. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_aquaticus)
• anticensor 8y ago
  > but isn't that how Nature works It might be how the nature works, but it is definitely not how Nature works. Capitalisation matters.