5 ms·

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 hig

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?
- cgriswald 7y ago
  Me? No. It would violate my values and the planets worth would be an absurdly large multiple of the entire world’s GDP over the long run. Someone else? Yes. They might not share my values and they may prefer short term gains or otherwise directly benefit from such an act. That’s the point of trying to define the problem in a reasoned way. It helps you keep the politics of it focused and de-politicized. Don’t let the example blind you to the principle.
  - defterGoose 7y ago
    Is there such a thing as moral bankruptcy? Should we strive to curb the worst impulses of people or is everything a 'value judgement'? We treat things like murder as a binary proposition (barring self defense), even if the person being murdered represents a drain on society's resources. Do you personally believe that humans are the ultimate arbiters of the universe?
    - cgriswald 7y ago
      Go ahead and call those who disagree with you 'criminals', but don't expect the issue to then not be politicized; and don't be surprised if they're not willing to listen to your ideas. You've already decided that whatever they are doing is wrong and shown them you're not willing to work with them to achieve any acceptable compromise. You've also alienated potential allies who are probably looking at you wondering if they are next. And you've given your opponents plausible deniability while possibly damaging your own credibility. > We treat things like murder as a binary proposition (barring self defense), even if the person being murdered represents a drain on society's resources. Since when? Historically it was A-OK to kill people under all kinds of circumstances that today we would consider murder. Some societies had ritualized sacrifice. Plenty of people now (myself included) think the death penalty is not okay. Even today, murder is often used as a tool of statecraft for every government on Earth. It's tolerated in many, many instances; sometimes even praised. Murder itself, in the US, is treated differently depending on intent. And murder is just a subset of killings, which include killing on the battlefield, manslaughter, self defense, accident, etc. There's nothing binary here. > Do you personally believe that humans are the ultimate arbiters of the universe? Does it matter what I personally believe to a person that wants to cut down a forest for profit? Does my belief somehow help achieve my goal? Does my belief do anything to convince anyone else?
inscionent 7y ago
Realize that there would be no need to 'Spend X' if humans had not mucked it up to begin with. All of this is humanity's problem. Those in power are going the opposite direction because that is what is required to stay in power. Humans are inherently shortsighted and overconfident.
namirez 7y ago
> 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. I take huge issue with this kind of utilitarian argument since time and again it has proven not to be effective or we wouldn't have been in this mess in the first place. Do polar bears have much impact on our "food, health, and resources"? It reminds me of this xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/
magicalist 7y ago
> 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 So all we have to do is quantify what making changes will do to a highly complex biological system that we don't fully understand or have even observed? And that's just building something in a single field, now multiply by all the possible construction sites in the US and then add in how they interact with each other once multiple sites are changed in an area or downstream or upstream or upwind or on the same aquifer or... It's so simple, why didn't we just do this from the start? :)
- cabaalis 7y ago
  We live in an era with a big problem: Regular people have an attention span that's way too short to ingest enough information to vote effectively for very large issues. This leads to the politicization of everything as a means of persuading people using wit or by demonizing the other side, because those methods are effective. Combine this with very interested parties spreading disinformation, and we are in big trouble.
  - xtiansimon 7y ago
    > ‘...attention span that’s way to short to..vote effectively.’ I was thinking the removal of the law that evaluates a species’ protection without regard to ‘economic impact’ would lead to each impacted community now having a chance to vote on what’s more important to them, species protection or local economy. And I believe people will organize to vote for the money.
- aplummer 7y ago
  I actually found this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/great-barrier-reef-valued-56b-deloitte/8649936 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/great-barrier-reef-va... very compelling as a logical person. I think it helps to quantify the issue to people who are dealing with their pressing issues (employment etc).
- jhedwards 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

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?

cgriswald 7y ago
Me? No. It would violate my values and the planets worth would be an absurdly large multiple of the entire world’s GDP over the long run. Someone else? Yes. They might not share my values and they may prefer short term gains or otherwise directly benefit from such an act. That’s the point of trying to define the problem in a reasoned way. It helps you keep the politics of it focused and de-politicized. Don’t let the example blind you to the principle.
- defterGoose 7y ago
  Is there such a thing as moral bankruptcy? Should we strive to curb the worst impulses of people or is everything a 'value judgement'? We treat things like murder as a binary proposition (barring self defense), even if the person being murdered represents a drain on society's resources. Do you personally believe that humans are the ultimate arbiters of the universe?
  - cgriswald 7y ago
    Go ahead and call those who disagree with you 'criminals', but don't expect the issue to then not be politicized; and don't be surprised if they're not willing to listen to your ideas. You've already decided that whatever they are doing is wrong and shown them you're not willing to work with them to achieve any acceptable compromise. You've also alienated potential allies who are probably looking at you wondering if they are next. And you've given your opponents plausible deniability while possibly damaging your own credibility. > We treat things like murder as a binary proposition (barring self defense), even if the person being murdered represents a drain on society's resources. Since when? Historically it was A-OK to kill people under all kinds of circumstances that today we would consider murder. Some societies had ritualized sacrifice. Plenty of people now (myself included) think the death penalty is not okay. Even today, murder is often used as a tool of statecraft for every government on Earth. It's tolerated in many, many instances; sometimes even praised. Murder itself, in the US, is treated differently depending on intent. And murder is just a subset of killings, which include killing on the battlefield, manslaughter, self defense, accident, etc. There's nothing binary here. > Do you personally believe that humans are the ultimate arbiters of the universe? Does it matter what I personally believe to a person that wants to cut down a forest for profit? Does my belief somehow help achieve my goal? Does my belief do anything to convince anyone else?

inscionent 7y ago

Realize that there would be no need to 'Spend X' if humans had not mucked it up to begin with. All of this is humanity's problem. Those in power are going the opposite direction because that is what is required to stay in power. Humans are inherently shortsighted and overconfident.

namirez 7y ago

> 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. I take huge issue with this kind of utilitarian argument since time and again it has proven not to be effective or we wouldn't have been in this mess in the first place. Do polar bears have much impact on our "food, health, and resources"? It reminds me of this xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/

magicalist 7y ago

> 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 So all we have to do is quantify what making changes will do to a highly complex biological system that we don't fully understand or have even observed? And that's just building something in a single field, now multiply by all the possible construction sites in the US and then add in how they interact with each other once multiple sites are changed in an area or downstream or upstream or upwind or on the same aquifer or... It's so simple, why didn't we just do this from the start? :)

cabaalis 7y ago
We live in an era with a big problem: Regular people have an attention span that's way too short to ingest enough information to vote effectively for very large issues. This leads to the politicization of everything as a means of persuading people using wit or by demonizing the other side, because those methods are effective. Combine this with very interested parties spreading disinformation, and we are in big trouble.
- xtiansimon 7y ago
  > ‘...attention span that’s way to short to..vote effectively.’ I was thinking the removal of the law that evaluates a species’ protection without regard to ‘economic impact’ would lead to each impacted community now having a chance to vote on what’s more important to them, species protection or local economy. And I believe people will organize to vote for the money.
aplummer 7y ago
I actually found this https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/great-barrier-reef-valued-56b-deloitte/8649936 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/great-barrier-reef-va... very compelling as a logical person. I think it helps to quantify the issue to people who are dealing with their pressing issues (employment etc).
jhedwards 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]