10 ms·

> or we die out and the planet recovers on its own. That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the planet to recover to. Without

> or we die out and the planet recovers on its own. That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the planet to recover to. Without us, the planet would just go on changing, without anything to judge the current environment at any point as good or bad to any particular standard. Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

apocalypstyx 7y ago
Saving ourselves for a little while. At the end of the end, no one outruns entropy.
aeternum 7y ago
It's also unlikely that all humans would die out even from severe climate change given our current technology. You could say that saving the environment is just saving the current set of humans, or our modern way of life. It definitely sounds much less noble when put that way though.
- outworlder 7y ago
  > It's also unlikely that all humans would die out even from severe climate change given our current technology. Up to a point, you could artificially sustain small populations (climate-controlled greenhouses and habitation). But there's a limit. We are not able to recreate the whole biosphere yet.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Which is all the reason to remember that, whatever we do, we absolutely cannot break our civilization's ability to maintain existing level of technology and improve on it. If we do break it, we're done. The Gulf Stream shutting down would be tough, but survivable. Global economy shutting down would be game over for humanity, preceded by unprecedented amounts of suffering. > You could say that saving the environment is just saving the current set of humans, or our modern way of life. It definitely sounds much less noble when put that way though. If you compare "our modern way of life" and the promises ahead to past millennia of humanity, it actually does sound very noble. I wouldn't wish medieval or ancestral life on my worst enemy.
lostconfused 7y ago
"Ideal state" is inserted by your own bias. There are plenty of changes made by humans to the planetary system and some of them will be undone once humans are not around to maintain those changes.
- Kiro 7y ago
  So what? What's the higher purpose?
  - jjuhl 7y ago
    Purpose? Ultimately there is none, of course. But short term there's the prolonged existence of our species.
amatecha 7y ago
I would never use the phrase "ideal state", but rather "natural state". Though, even that is not quite accurate as humans are naturally-occurring too, but the things we do (and do to the planet) are not quite so "natural". While thinking that "the planet is worse off because of humans" is a judgement, I think it's not unreasonable to assert that innocent life forms all over the world suffer by our actions (more than they probably would have if we weren't here), and they are powerless to prevent that. I think this is what people are intuitively feeling a sense of when they say things like "or we die out and the planet recovers on its own".
- rdiddly 7y ago
  In my ponderings on this, I tend to think of a "post-human state." If the influence of homo sapiens on a place or ecosystem were to decrease dramatically, and insofar as any place or ecosystem would tend toward anything resembling equilibrium rather than constant/continued change, most of them will probably stabilize around a discernibly post-human state, rather than the pre-human one that prevailed throughout most of our history until the industrial era. It's just the lowest-energy and most likely outcome. So like, all the kudzu, rats and other wacky species we've introduced here and there, would have a go. Though they might not all make it. Pretty much impossible to predict, because it's a chaotic system, but also because the effects of the heat we've introduced have only started to play out.
- tgarv 7y ago
  I was actually wondering recently if there has ever been a huge spike in, say, a new species of algae or something, that caused a large change in the atmosphere. I know that what we're doing as a species isn't "natural", and we know better and could avoid it if we really wanted to, but it still had me thinking about what kinds of things the planet has gone through before that would have been alarming at the time if someone had been around to monitor it.
  - Donald 7y ago
    Species are created on geologic timescales. Human activity is, in comparison, instantaneously destroying biological diversity. Evolution simply doesn't have enough time to adapt species to the sort of exponential changes we're seeing in their environments.
ff317 7y ago
+1 - I think the kind of marketing and messaging that makes environmentalism all about saving "the planet" and "the animals" and "the natural environment" really doesn't serve us well. A better strategic approach would be to highlight (with the right crafty messaging) that a very tiny statistical slice of earth's historical states and potential future states are any good at supporting large human populations comfortably like we do today, and our goal is preserving this state in our own self-interest. It's not environmentalism at all, it's human self-interest.
- anigbrowl 7y ago
  Your approach will fail for the same reason than an ethical environmental appeal does. Enough humans who feel and fear their impending mortality are selfish and vindictive enough to obstruct change because they want to conserve whatever material comforts they have now and do not care about what happens to other people after they're dead. I would go so far as to say that some of them take a perverse pleasure in the idea of everyone else being worse off, going by the number of facially specious arguments and overtly sadistic rhetoric deployed by many self-styled 'skeptics'.
  - socialist_coder 7y ago
    I don't disagree, but I also think it is important to note that what you are describing is baked into our entire economic system. Economic actors all acting rationally in their own best interest, which automatically filters out any long term multi-generational outlook. Capitalism is the root cause here.
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      That's a good point. Would be nice if vindictive people had to make an actual effort, instead of their position being the default path of least resistance.
    - andrey_utkin 7y ago
      Following one's desires is baked into our biology, and economic system is just the consequence. Kittens don't know about capitalism but they follow their desires. Capitalism is just a mental framework which helps to satisfy one's desires in a big way without the need to kill people. Full socialism, while very interesting to many here, especially when it comes to the final happy picture, unfortunately involves killing lots and lots of people, as history shows us.
commandlinefan 7y ago
> Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves I wonder, though... we know, for example, that bees pollinate plants, and that we need plants to be pollinated for our survival. But if the bees die out, we can figure out another technical way to pollinate plants - it might be a pain to carry out, and we might be kicking ourselves for not saving the bees before it got to that point, but it can be done. If it comes down to a matter of survival, humans a a species will figure out a way to get what needs to be done, done. You might say that saving the birds and the insects now is the "simpler" route than replacing them, but it's starting to look like you'd be wrong, and we're not going to have any choice but figure out how to keep the human race going without them.
- yifanl 7y ago
  We haven't come close to solving the environment, whatever that means. If we had that solution on any scale, then almost by tautology, climate change wouldn't be a problem.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  > If it comes down to a matter of survival, humans as a species will figure out a way to get what needs to be done, done. Don’t count on it. Human civilization depends heavily on trust and cooperation, and a large number of complex systems functioning which nobody completely understands and most people barely notice. The whole endeavor is quite fragile. Once basic systems start breaking down, people start starving and dying, and societies start to collapse, it can get real bad in a hurry. There have been plenty of past examples of large-scale societies collapsing into ruin, with the survivors fleeing or dying out.
  - Bjartr 7y ago
    Note that he said species and you said civilization. Civilization could crumble, worldwide populations of humans could crater to under a million, and the species could survive for another hundred thousand years. You're both correct, you're just talking past each other.
  - richardknop 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
gerbilly 7y ago
> That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the planet to recover to. If you want to know what the natural state for an area is, ask a native person from a population that has un uninterrupted culture, that is if you can find one. A native person I know often describes a discorded ecosystem by saying: "The land is sick." To equivocate and to claim all states are equally natural, is to deliberately miss the point. A healthy ecosystem—and most of us haven't ever seen one—is obviously healthy when you see it. It's a tautology to say that everything is natural. You could argue that plutonium and dioxin are natural, but without considering the concentration and distribution, it's meaningless semantics.
- UnFleshedOne 7y ago
  Chinese are "native people from a population that has un-uninterrupted culture". Not too great at preserving environment (reportedly improving lately I think). Idea of a "noble savage" is a myth that is about as racist as it's opposite.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >Chinese are "native people from a population that has un-uninterrupted culture". Didn't they interrupt their culture with extreme prejudice like fifty-odd years ago?
  - gerbilly 7y ago
    Don't sling epithets. My using the word 'native' was a proxy for a type of culture: a close to the land hunter gatherer lifestyle. You know one that would necessarily make them keen observers of their natural environment. I could have said aboriginal, but maybe you'll take offence to that too?
    - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
      Ah, sorry, I didn't mean you are racist. Just the idea of noble savage. I should have been more careful with the wording. Re: hunter-gatherer lifestyle, my understanding that people leading that are merely unlucky (or lucky) ones who didn't domesticate enough plants and animals to settle down and go through a population explosion. They certainly have a lot of knowledge about local ecosystems because they depend on that knowledge for survival. But, a few successful domestications, some introduced species, few hundred years of nice weather and they will multiply and turn into the same kind of locusts the rest of humanity is. I think Maya or Aztec went through that. Hell, this was happening back when cyanobacteria was repeatedly wiping out life on earth before something figured out how to use oxygen. It is a general property of life -- consume and reproduce. We might eventually grow out of it (I see a lot of promise in regenerative agriculture for example), but chances are not certain.
RangerScience 7y ago
It's not so much that I completely agree with your sentiment, than that I think this is an incredible way to phrase the issue. Likely more effective, and I think I'll try switching to it.
scoutt 7y ago
> 'ideal state' There may not be an ideal state, but maybe parent is talking about reverting the damage we are producing. > Without us, the planet would just go on changing That's true, but at the same time it is not a valid excuse to keep making damage. Someone could argue that killing you today is OK since you'll eventually die. > Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less. You can also word it as 'destroying the environment is killing ourselves', that is more or less the same we hear every day.
Angostura 7y ago
I strongly disagree. I don't believe in an natural ideal state, however I can distinguish between a planet with a large number of species living in a biologically diverse set of ecosystems; an a biologically impoverished planet with fewer species and biomes. I think it is fair to say that complexity and variety is a objectively good thing and that humanity's action causing a mass extinction event is objectively bad. That's not to say that mass extinctions or biome change will occur without us.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  I disagree and prefer a world with fewer species. Insects and birds going away is something I'm really happy about. For example, I hate mosquitoes and the noise birds make. Also not fond of birds defecating wherever.
  - inimino 7y ago
    Is this satire?
    - Kaiyou 7y ago
      No, but you thinking it would be shows your biases/filterbubble.
      - inimino 7y ago
        And you expecting it to be read straight shows yours.
        Kaiyou 7y ago
        I wrote it tongue in cheek, but I'm serious. Being surrounded by people that think like you makes me aware of that type of attitude.
  - inimino 7y ago
    Fortunately[1], those annoying birds and insects are going away[2] like never before! [1] for you [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollinator_decline Are humans starving to death also something you'd be really happy about? Because if insects and birds go away, who is going to pollinate all that shit you plant and expect to be able to eat? Also not fond of your cities and farms pouring your waste into the oceans wherever.
Ma8ee 7y ago
> Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less. I disagree. I think nature has a value in itself, in all its complexity and beauty. I think few people would argue that if the Louvre was destroyed it wouldn't be considered a loss for the world and for humankind, or that we don't still lament the loss of the library in Alexandria. Of course, nothing of this matters from the perspective of the heath death of the universe. But that is a cynism that I consider juvenile.

apocalypstyx 7y ago

Saving ourselves for a little while. At the end of the end, no one outruns entropy.

aeternum 7y ago

It's also unlikely that all humans would die out even from severe climate change given our current technology. You could say that saving the environment is just saving the current set of humans, or our modern way of life. It definitely sounds much less noble when put that way though.

outworlder 7y ago
> It's also unlikely that all humans would die out even from severe climate change given our current technology. Up to a point, you could artificially sustain small populations (climate-controlled greenhouses and habitation). But there's a limit. We are not able to recreate the whole biosphere yet.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Which is all the reason to remember that, whatever we do, we absolutely cannot break our civilization's ability to maintain existing level of technology and improve on it. If we do break it, we're done. The Gulf Stream shutting down would be tough, but survivable. Global economy shutting down would be game over for humanity, preceded by unprecedented amounts of suffering. > You could say that saving the environment is just saving the current set of humans, or our modern way of life. It definitely sounds much less noble when put that way though. If you compare "our modern way of life" and the promises ahead to past millennia of humanity, it actually does sound very noble. I wouldn't wish medieval or ancestral life on my worst enemy.

lostconfused 7y ago

"Ideal state" is inserted by your own bias. There are plenty of changes made by humans to the planetary system and some of them will be undone once humans are not around to maintain those changes.

Kiro 7y ago
So what? What's the higher purpose?
- jjuhl 7y ago
  Purpose? Ultimately there is none, of course. But short term there's the prolonged existence of our species.

amatecha 7y ago

I would never use the phrase "ideal state", but rather "natural state". Though, even that is not quite accurate as humans are naturally-occurring too, but the things we do (and do to the planet) are not quite so "natural". While thinking that "the planet is worse off because of humans" is a judgement, I think it's not unreasonable to assert that innocent life forms all over the world suffer by our actions (more than they probably would have if we weren't here), and they are powerless to prevent that. I think this is what people are intuitively feeling a sense of when they say things like "or we die out and the planet recovers on its own".

rdiddly 7y ago
In my ponderings on this, I tend to think of a "post-human state." If the influence of homo sapiens on a place or ecosystem were to decrease dramatically, and insofar as any place or ecosystem would tend toward anything resembling equilibrium rather than constant/continued change, most of them will probably stabilize around a discernibly post-human state, rather than the pre-human one that prevailed throughout most of our history until the industrial era. It's just the lowest-energy and most likely outcome. So like, all the kudzu, rats and other wacky species we've introduced here and there, would have a go. Though they might not all make it. Pretty much impossible to predict, because it's a chaotic system, but also because the effects of the heat we've introduced have only started to play out.
tgarv 7y ago
I was actually wondering recently if there has ever been a huge spike in, say, a new species of algae or something, that caused a large change in the atmosphere. I know that what we're doing as a species isn't "natural", and we know better and could avoid it if we really wanted to, but it still had me thinking about what kinds of things the planet has gone through before that would have been alarming at the time if someone had been around to monitor it.
- Donald 7y ago
  Species are created on geologic timescales. Human activity is, in comparison, instantaneously destroying biological diversity. Evolution simply doesn't have enough time to adapt species to the sort of exponential changes we're seeing in their environments.

ff317 7y ago

+1 - I think the kind of marketing and messaging that makes environmentalism all about saving "the planet" and "the animals" and "the natural environment" really doesn't serve us well. A better strategic approach would be to highlight (with the right crafty messaging) that a very tiny statistical slice of earth's historical states and potential future states are any good at supporting large human populations comfortably like we do today, and our goal is preserving this state in our own self-interest. It's not environmentalism at all, it's human self-interest.

anigbrowl 7y ago
Your approach will fail for the same reason than an ethical environmental appeal does. Enough humans who feel and fear their impending mortality are selfish and vindictive enough to obstruct change because they want to conserve whatever material comforts they have now and do not care about what happens to other people after they're dead. I would go so far as to say that some of them take a perverse pleasure in the idea of everyone else being worse off, going by the number of facially specious arguments and overtly sadistic rhetoric deployed by many self-styled 'skeptics'.
- socialist_coder 7y ago
  I don't disagree, but I also think it is important to note that what you are describing is baked into our entire economic system. Economic actors all acting rationally in their own best interest, which automatically filters out any long term multi-generational outlook. Capitalism is the root cause here.
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    That's a good point. Would be nice if vindictive people had to make an actual effort, instead of their position being the default path of least resistance.
  - andrey_utkin 7y ago
    Following one's desires is baked into our biology, and economic system is just the consequence. Kittens don't know about capitalism but they follow their desires. Capitalism is just a mental framework which helps to satisfy one's desires in a big way without the need to kill people. Full socialism, while very interesting to many here, especially when it comes to the final happy picture, unfortunately involves killing lots and lots of people, as history shows us.

commandlinefan 7y ago

> Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves I wonder, though... we know, for example, that bees pollinate plants, and that we need plants to be pollinated for our survival. But if the bees die out, we can figure out another technical way to pollinate plants - it might be a pain to carry out, and we might be kicking ourselves for not saving the bees before it got to that point, but it can be done. If it comes down to a matter of survival, humans a a species will figure out a way to get what needs to be done, done. You might say that saving the birds and the insects now is the "simpler" route than replacing them, but it's starting to look like you'd be wrong, and we're not going to have any choice but figure out how to keep the human race going without them.

yifanl 7y ago
We haven't come close to solving the environment, whatever that means. If we had that solution on any scale, then almost by tautology, climate change wouldn't be a problem.
jacobolus 7y ago
> If it comes down to a matter of survival, humans as a species will figure out a way to get what needs to be done, done. Don’t count on it. Human civilization depends heavily on trust and cooperation, and a large number of complex systems functioning which nobody completely understands and most people barely notice. The whole endeavor is quite fragile. Once basic systems start breaking down, people start starving and dying, and societies start to collapse, it can get real bad in a hurry. There have been plenty of past examples of large-scale societies collapsing into ruin, with the survivors fleeing or dying out.
- Bjartr 7y ago
  Note that he said species and you said civilization. Civilization could crumble, worldwide populations of humans could crater to under a million, and the species could survive for another hundred thousand years. You're both correct, you're just talking past each other.
- richardknop 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

gerbilly 7y ago

> That makes it sound like there's some kind of natural 'ideal state' for the planet to recover to. If you want to know what the natural state for an area is, ask a native person from a population that has un uninterrupted culture, that is if you can find one. A native person I know often describes a discorded ecosystem by saying: "The land is sick." To equivocate and to claim all states are equally natural, is to deliberately miss the point. A healthy ecosystem—and most of us haven't ever seen one—is obviously healthy when you see it. It's a tautology to say that everything is natural. You could argue that plutonium and dioxin are natural, but without considering the concentration and distribution, it's meaningless semantics.

UnFleshedOne 7y ago
Chinese are "native people from a population that has un-uninterrupted culture". Not too great at preserving environment (reportedly improving lately I think). Idea of a "noble savage" is a myth that is about as racist as it's opposite.
- krapp 7y ago
  >Chinese are "native people from a population that has un-uninterrupted culture". Didn't they interrupt their culture with extreme prejudice like fifty-odd years ago?
- gerbilly 7y ago
  Don't sling epithets. My using the word 'native' was a proxy for a type of culture: a close to the land hunter gatherer lifestyle. You know one that would necessarily make them keen observers of their natural environment. I could have said aboriginal, but maybe you'll take offence to that too?
  - UnFleshedOne 7y ago
    Ah, sorry, I didn't mean you are racist. Just the idea of noble savage. I should have been more careful with the wording. Re: hunter-gatherer lifestyle, my understanding that people leading that are merely unlucky (or lucky) ones who didn't domesticate enough plants and animals to settle down and go through a population explosion. They certainly have a lot of knowledge about local ecosystems because they depend on that knowledge for survival. But, a few successful domestications, some introduced species, few hundred years of nice weather and they will multiply and turn into the same kind of locusts the rest of humanity is. I think Maya or Aztec went through that. Hell, this was happening back when cyanobacteria was repeatedly wiping out life on earth before something figured out how to use oxygen. It is a general property of life -- consume and reproduce. We might eventually grow out of it (I see a lot of promise in regenerative agriculture for example), but chances are not certain.

RangerScience 7y ago

It's not so much that I completely agree with your sentiment, than that I think this is an incredible way to phrase the issue. Likely more effective, and I think I'll try switching to it.

scoutt 7y ago

> 'ideal state' There may not be an ideal state, but maybe parent is talking about reverting the damage we are producing. > Without us, the planet would just go on changing That's true, but at the same time it is not a valid excuse to keep making damage. Someone could argue that killing you today is OK since you'll eventually die. > Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less. You can also word it as 'destroying the environment is killing ourselves', that is more or less the same we hear every day.

Angostura 7y ago

I strongly disagree. I don't believe in an natural ideal state, however I can distinguish between a planet with a large number of species living in a biologically diverse set of ecosystems; an a biologically impoverished planet with fewer species and biomes. I think it is fair to say that complexity and variety is a objectively good thing and that humanity's action causing a mass extinction event is objectively bad. That's not to say that mass extinctions or biome change will occur without us.

Kaiyou 7y ago
I disagree and prefer a world with fewer species. Insects and birds going away is something I'm really happy about. For example, I hate mosquitoes and the noise birds make. Also not fond of birds defecating wherever.
- inimino 7y ago
  Is this satire?
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    No, but you thinking it would be shows your biases/filterbubble.
    - inimino 7y ago
      And you expecting it to be read straight shows yours.
      - Kaiyou 7y ago
        I wrote it tongue in cheek, but I'm serious. Being surrounded by people that think like you makes me aware of that type of attitude.
- inimino 7y ago
  Fortunately[1], those annoying birds and insects are going away[2] like never before! [1] for you [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollinator_decline Are humans starving to death also something you'd be really happy about? Because if insects and birds go away, who is going to pollinate all that shit you plant and expect to be able to eat? Also not fond of your cities and farms pouring your waste into the oceans wherever.

Ma8ee 7y ago

> Saving the environment is simply saving ourselves. Nothing more, nothing less. I disagree. I think nature has a value in itself, in all its complexity and beauty. I think few people would argue that if the Louvre was destroyed it wouldn't be considered a loss for the world and for humankind, or that we don't still lament the loss of the library in Alexandria. Of course, nothing of this matters from the perspective of the heath death of the universe. But that is a cynism that I consider juvenile.