7 ms·

It makes me sad that topics like this are politicized when it should be looked at as a crime against the Earth. The only voice animals on our earth have is the

It makes me sad that topics like this are politicized when it should be looked at as a crime against the Earth. The only voice animals on our earth have is their plummeting population numbers, if we can't even look at that as a sign of global crisis and act on it, I don't know what else we can do.

maxerickson 7y ago
When you say politicized, do you just mean that there is not universal agreement on the subject? Because anything where there isn't universal agreement is inherently political...
- Dumblydorr 7y ago
  Is there an issue with universal agreement in politics? If so, is it then political or merely logistical and practical concern? I dont think our polarized times has to mean that all discord and disagreement is politics. For instance, we could disagree on the fundamentals of a topic yet agree on a solution and politically compromise to enact laws. For instance, how much regulation? Some say none, some say a lot, disagreement fundamentally, but politics is also about the subsequent agreement on compromise. In short, I dont think we can redefine politics as disagreement. Politics is more about social and rhetorical maneuvering towards a desired end state. That maneuvering is necessary due to conflict and disagreement, but the part is not the whole.
- chewbacha 7y ago
  In the biological community, biodiversity is seen as the mark of a stable ecosystem. There is little debate whether it should be protected because lack of biodiversity is repeatedly being shown to reduce the fitness of the other species in that ecosystem. It's the same rationale for using a permaculture versus a monoculture in agriculture. It's "politicized" almost entirely because of misinformation campaigns that have torn down the search for truth and the trust of science. Instead, government leaders (especially in the current whitehouse administration in the USA) are actively destroying scientific communities, running them out of non-partisan offices, destroying scientific research, defunding other research, and restricting access to publications. It's not that there isn't a universal agreement, there actually is a bipartisan appreciation of the endangered species act (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/12/20802132/endangered-species-act-trump-weakening https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/12/20802132/en...) and it seems most people appreciate what it brings. So yes, it's definitely being "politicized" as the objective science behind it is being destroyed.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    There's plenty of people that (obviously) do not see any inherent value in ecosystems or biodiversity, just in the ends they serve. Pretending that this is a result of misinformation campaigns won't address it (their values are the problem, not their lack of knowledge), and it means that protecting biodiversity will require political compromise.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      According to [1] linked by uberman in another comment, that 'plenty' is only 20%. So not much compromise would be needed. [1] https://www.hcn.org/articles/endangered-species-most-americans-support-the-endangered-species-act https://www.hcn.org/articles/endangered-species-most-america...
- inscionent 7y ago
  It is politicized because a public good, the functional ecosystem, is coming into conflict with a private profit motive, resource extraction, land development, etc. The real problem is that public goods don't have equal advocacy in the halls of power. Public goods don't pay campaign contributions. Public goods don't run PACs. Pubic goods have to be championed by a motivated and organized coalition of citizens; all the while capital continues to amass power.
cgriswald 7y ago
Calling it a 'crime against the Earth' is politicizing it. That's not being "a voice for animals." It's being vaguely abstract and appealing to emotion or a higher authority (nature in this case). Define the problem: $animal is going extinct. Define why it is a problem: Biodiversity is an indicator for healthy ecologies. The extinction of endangered animals threatens the stability of ecology $Y which humans rely on for food, health, and resources. Define the solution: By spending $X on preserving $Y, we can insure our access to resource $Z is not threatened. This gives people something to actually address. They may disagree with you about any points (which is political, but isn't necessarily "politicized"), which can help tease out specific issues of contention and find compromises (or outvote them, if necessary).
- defterGoose 7y ago
  A quandary for you. Is genocide political?
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    The downvote is of course your prerogative, but would you mind answering the question?
    - deogeo 7y ago
      You cannot downvote replies to your own posts, so it was someone else's doing.
      - defterGoose 7y ago
        I was not aware of this, thank you. I'd still like an answer from any downvoters.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Let's say there's a verdant planet orbiting a distant star with a complex ecosystem but no sentient inhabitants. You can press a button to blow the planet up, and in exchange the US GDP will grow by 1 cent. Do you go through with it?
OrgNet 7y ago
it's natural selection, I guess... are all species worth saving? Also, if we save their DNA, we could possibly recreate them later....

maxerickson 7y ago

When you say politicized, do you just mean that there is not universal agreement on the subject? Because anything where there isn't universal agreement is inherently political...

Dumblydorr 7y ago
Is there an issue with universal agreement in politics? If so, is it then political or merely logistical and practical concern? I dont think our polarized times has to mean that all discord and disagreement is politics. For instance, we could disagree on the fundamentals of a topic yet agree on a solution and politically compromise to enact laws. For instance, how much regulation? Some say none, some say a lot, disagreement fundamentally, but politics is also about the subsequent agreement on compromise. In short, I dont think we can redefine politics as disagreement. Politics is more about social and rhetorical maneuvering towards a desired end state. That maneuvering is necessary due to conflict and disagreement, but the part is not the whole.
chewbacha 7y ago
In the biological community, biodiversity is seen as the mark of a stable ecosystem. There is little debate whether it should be protected because lack of biodiversity is repeatedly being shown to reduce the fitness of the other species in that ecosystem. It's the same rationale for using a permaculture versus a monoculture in agriculture. It's "politicized" almost entirely because of misinformation campaigns that have torn down the search for truth and the trust of science. Instead, government leaders (especially in the current whitehouse administration in the USA) are actively destroying scientific communities, running them out of non-partisan offices, destroying scientific research, defunding other research, and restricting access to publications. It's not that there isn't a universal agreement, there actually is a bipartisan appreciation of the endangered species act (https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/12/20802132/endangered-species-act-trump-weakening https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/8/12/20802132/en...) and it seems most people appreciate what it brings. So yes, it's definitely being "politicized" as the objective science behind it is being destroyed.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  There's plenty of people that (obviously) do not see any inherent value in ecosystems or biodiversity, just in the ends they serve. Pretending that this is a result of misinformation campaigns won't address it (their values are the problem, not their lack of knowledge), and it means that protecting biodiversity will require political compromise.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    According to [1] linked by uberman in another comment, that 'plenty' is only 20%. So not much compromise would be needed. [1] https://www.hcn.org/articles/endangered-species-most-americans-support-the-endangered-species-act https://www.hcn.org/articles/endangered-species-most-america...
inscionent 7y ago
It is politicized because a public good, the functional ecosystem, is coming into conflict with a private profit motive, resource extraction, land development, etc. The real problem is that public goods don't have equal advocacy in the halls of power. Public goods don't pay campaign contributions. Public goods don't run PACs. Pubic goods have to be championed by a motivated and organized coalition of citizens; all the while capital continues to amass power.

cgriswald 7y ago

Calling it a 'crime against the Earth' is politicizing it. That's not being "a voice for animals." It's being vaguely abstract and appealing to emotion or a higher authority (nature in this case). Define the problem: $animal is going extinct. Define why it is a problem: Biodiversity is an indicator for healthy ecologies. The extinction of endangered animals threatens the stability of ecology $Y which humans rely on for food, health, and resources. Define the solution: By spending $X on preserving $Y, we can insure our access to resource $Z is not threatened. This gives people something to actually address. They may disagree with you about any points (which is political, but isn't necessarily "politicized"), which can help tease out specific issues of contention and find compromises (or outvote them, if necessary).

defterGoose 7y ago
A quandary for you. Is genocide political?
- defterGoose 7y ago
  The downvote is of course your prerogative, but would you mind answering the question?
  - deogeo 7y ago
    You cannot downvote replies to your own posts, so it was someone else's doing.
    - defterGoose 7y ago
      I was not aware of this, thank you. I'd still like an answer from any downvoters.
whatshisface 7y ago
Let's say there's a verdant planet orbiting a distant star with a complex ecosystem but no sentient inhabitants. You can press a button to blow the planet up, and in exchange the US GDP will grow by 1 cent. Do you go through with it?

OrgNet 7y ago

it's natural selection, I guess... are all species worth saving? Also, if we save their DNA, we could possibly recreate them later....