3 ms·

> It's not going to restore any ecosystems that we value, obviously, as those never existed But wouldn't new ones be created? I think that's what the parent p

> It's not going to restore any ecosystems that we value, obviously, as those never existed But wouldn't new ones be created? I think that's what the parent poster is getting at - teasing out if this isn't just a common case of reactionary environmentalism and anti-human bias, where the criteria for finding that a certain construction is harmful is not applied to natural features, revealing the whole reasoning to be hypocritical, and not the real reason why it's the argument is being made.

ajross 7y ago
> But wouldn't new ones be created? Of course. Do anything and you create new ecosystems. Building the Maine dam in the first place created new ecosystems. They just aren't (1) beneficial to us in any meaningful way and (2) represent notable loss of a pre-existing ecosystem we value and want to preserve. I don't see the hypocrisy there. You're trying to treat this as an absolutist thing (e.g. "riparian environments must be maximized at all costs") and color it as "reactionary environmentalism", when the truth is that it's a value judgement with specific evidence (e.g. "we fucked up the Kennebec river and we should fix that shit"[1]). [1] More properly, given the article that no one here seems actually interested in reading: "We fixed that shit 20 years ago and, wow! It's fixed even better than we hoped!"
- icebraining 7y ago
  I'm saying the people who made an evidence-based value judgement in this case would never consider doing the same for a natural dam. But maybe I'm wrong.
  - ajross 7y ago
    Isn't the more obvious hypothesis that those people DID make an evidence-based value judgement and decided differently? Your argument only seems to work if you start by assuming bad faith on the part of environmentalists. How about you trust us instead?
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Not bad faith, just bias! I do trust environmentalists, more than I trust basically everyone else in the public sphere. But there's a reason the article keeps using the word conservationist instead :)

ajross 7y ago

> But wouldn't new ones be created? Of course. Do anything and you create new ecosystems. Building the Maine dam in the first place created new ecosystems. They just aren't (1) beneficial to us in any meaningful way and (2) represent notable loss of a pre-existing ecosystem we value and want to preserve. I don't see the hypocrisy there. You're trying to treat this as an absolutist thing (e.g. "riparian environments must be maximized at all costs") and color it as "reactionary environmentalism", when the truth is that it's a value judgement with specific evidence (e.g. "we fucked up the Kennebec river and we should fix that shit"[1]). [1] More properly, given the article that no one here seems actually interested in reading: "We fixed that shit 20 years ago and, wow! It's fixed even better than we hoped!"

icebraining 7y ago
I'm saying the people who made an evidence-based value judgement in this case would never consider doing the same for a natural dam. But maybe I'm wrong.
- ajross 7y ago
  Isn't the more obvious hypothesis that those people DID make an evidence-based value judgement and decided differently? Your argument only seems to work if you start by assuming bad faith on the part of environmentalists. How about you trust us instead?
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Not bad faith, just bias! I do trust environmentalists, more than I trust basically everyone else in the public sphere. But there's a reason the article keeps using the word conservationist instead :)