4 ms·

This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, it is arrogant to sit in comfortable chairs imported to areas that live in excess and tell others to live with less

This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, it is arrogant to sit in comfortable chairs imported to areas that live in excess and tell others to live with less so that we may appreciate their wilderness from afar; or ephemerally while we are on vacation. On the other hand, I am reminded of this letter/video which sums up an important ethos: https://vimeo.com/newmanfilm/wildernessletter https://vimeo.com/newmanfilm/wildernessletter. We should protect the wilderness because it inspires us to be better. Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow (we need food and water). But we do need it to remind ourselves where we came from and how complexity can be beautiful. So what do we do?

jarmitage 8y ago
> Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow Can you back this up? I agree with the comment by fractallyte that wilderness is a necessity for long-term survival of humans. Also guaranteeing food and water without wilderness has never been attempted before...
- grondilu 8y ago
  It seems to me that the opposite assessment requires more justification. Ever since Neolithic, mankind has been domesticating most if not all species it consumed. And we've been deforesting like crazy. We're not hunter gatherers anymore, so our progress has consisted relying less and less on wilderness and more on controlled, artificial environments. I'm not saying that we don't need wilderness for deeper reasons (say psychological, or in terms on keeping biodiversity for future-proofing our biological pool of domesticated species...). But such hypothetical reliance on wilderness surely seems less obvious than our independence from it.
  - mac01021 8y ago
    Absolutely not definitive, but the biosphere 2 experiments provide a data point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
    - grondilu 8y ago
      We were talking about wilderness. Biosphere 2 is about way more than that, as it was a completely sealed environment (it had to produce its own oxygen, for a start).
stared 8y ago
> Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow It is a very egoistic perspective (at the species level) that we can destroy species of plants and animals (and entire ecosystems) just because they don't serve us.
- stupidbird 8y ago
  ...and it's a bit naive to overlook the fact that we've already done this. We've wiped hundreds of species off the face of the earth while coming to rely on other species that wouldn't exist without our intervention (e.g. livestock). Entire ecosystems have been destroyed simply because they don't serve us.

jarmitage 8y ago

> Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow Can you back this up? I agree with the comment by fractallyte that wilderness is a necessity for long-term survival of humans. Also guaranteeing food and water without wilderness has never been attempted before...

grondilu 8y ago
It seems to me that the opposite assessment requires more justification. Ever since Neolithic, mankind has been domesticating most if not all species it consumed. And we've been deforesting like crazy. We're not hunter gatherers anymore, so our progress has consisted relying less and less on wilderness and more on controlled, artificial environments. I'm not saying that we don't need wilderness for deeper reasons (say psychological, or in terms on keeping biodiversity for future-proofing our biological pool of domesticated species...). But such hypothetical reliance on wilderness surely seems less obvious than our independence from it.
- mac01021 8y ago
  Absolutely not definitive, but the biosphere 2 experiments provide a data point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
  - grondilu 8y ago
    We were talking about wilderness. Biosphere 2 is about way more than that, as it was a completely sealed environment (it had to produce its own oxygen, for a start).

stared 8y ago

> Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow It is a very egoistic perspective (at the species level) that we can destroy species of plants and animals (and entire ecosystems) just because they don't serve us.

stupidbird 8y ago
...and it's a bit naive to overlook the fact that we've already done this. We've wiped hundreds of species off the face of the earth while coming to rely on other species that wouldn't exist without our intervention (e.g. livestock). Entire ecosystems have been destroyed simply because they don't serve us.