6 ms·

We should rewild 50% of the world and ban humans from entering without a permit. Permits should only be given to those with legitimate professional requirements

We should rewild 50% of the world and ban humans from entering without a permit. Permits should only be given to those with legitimate professional requirements.

eru 6y ago
Luckily, most of the globe is still wild. We have barely started colonizing the oceans after all. It would be interesting to rewild much of the land mass as well. However, politics is often against that. Eg see those heartfelt efforts to rescue dying towns in the Appalachians or the Great Plains in the US. Or the general subsidies for suburban / exurban living (like eg the whole structure of USPS).
- adrianN 6y ago
  We have colonized the oceans. Large trawler fleets are fishing many species to the brink of collapse.
  - eru 6y ago
    We have devastated the oceans, but not colonized. Fish farming would be colonization.
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  Rewild means no evidence of human activity... including our trash
- jamil7 6y ago
  The oceans might not be colonised in a traditional sense of the word but they’ve very much felt the effects of our presence and are in pretty dire shape.
  - eru 6y ago
    Yes, that's true. Alas, it's also true for many wilderness areas on land. Eg air pollution doesn't stop at national park borders.
- mulmen 6y ago
  The USPS provides a critical service. While some rural areas may have reached the end of their viable existence the USPS still exists to serve places where the market has not yet offered a solution. It's a critical service to the functioning and growth of a nation of our size.
  - eru 6y ago
    See, that's exactly the point. If you want people to move away from those areas so that wilderness can take over, you should not subsidize them to stay there. Whether you like rewilding more or the critical service that the USPS provides, is up to you. But you should recognize that they are at least somewhat in conflict.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      Yeah, no. You don't get people to move by making their lives horrible. see: coal country. The USPS is more of a service to guarantee equal opportunity than it is a subsidy. This year is a great example of that. The USPS is the organization tasked with collecting and transporting ballots. That's not the kind of thing I want entrusted to the free market. You have presented a false choice between rewilding and the USPS. They are entirely separate topics. People need mail service where they live. Taking away basic services to force them to move is inhumane.
      - eru 6y ago
        On the margin you do get more people to live in certain places or in certain ways by providing subsidies for those places and ways. Many other countries do just fine without a government monopoly on mail that subsidizes rural areas. Private carriers can serve just fine.
ur-whale 6y ago
Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but curious to know if you have thought how, practically, you'd enforce something like this?
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  Urban densification including urban farming in skyscrapers. Desalination would need to go mainstream too. Of course many will be upset they can't live in a pile on 4 acres. I also have little confidence this would be a popular move given the outrageous individualist fundamentalism we've managed to create in society but I am convinced it is essential to avoiding systemic collapse.
  - fogihujy 6y ago
    And those of us who are living a quiet life on a small plot of land in one of those areas? Forced relocation into a physically and culturally unfamiliar place? "Sorry, you're not a part of the problem, but you live in the same area as those who are. Off you go!"? There has been attempts at mass re-locations of people before. It usually didn't turn out well.
    - strogonoff 6y ago
      Were there ever mass relocations of people done with the specific goal of preserving and re-wilding nature? I actually found the idea really interesting. Though one of my parents is living a quiet life on a small piece of land and I entertained that idea myself, I personally find the sacrifice worth it. However, some difficulties would have to be addressed first: 1. Lack of trust in each other, authorities and institutions—in some cases, deserved (rogue actors). Who has to leave first, who gets a better view from their new home in a futuristic skyscraper, entry permit fairness and enforcement (there will be long perimeters to protect, albeit it could be a good source of jobs), etc. 2. Ensuring healthy human habitat in dense urban environments (pollution, clean energy, as well as psychology). Many of those hurdles are societal/organizational/psychological, and are not liable to be solved by accelerated technical progress alone. Frustratingly, since the best time to do this is probably ASAP.
vagrantJin 6y ago
Hahaha. I dont disagree with the sentiment but I think its misplaced. People are well and truly capable of living with nature without killing whole forests. Its a matter of putting our interests above those of others that is the issue. Eg. The government permits loggers to cut down 1000 year old trees in a forest, permits mutlinational Ag companies to cut down and burn much of the forest to plant some inane plant species that has marginal benefit to squeeze out an extra 10 cents on a human consumed product because ultimately the quarterly results have to improve. All these abstractions have seemingly nothing to do with a dead forest. We should have instead, enforcable policy that puts a high price on environmental projects of any scope larger than..say an acre. It would force companies to innovate and invest in R&D. Use those big brains.
glerk 6y ago
When we grow up as a species, we should move entirely to artificial space habitats and let the Earth be a natural reserve.
mulmen 6y ago
This seems to imply we could develop half the world, which seems like a lot more than we have done today. Your description of controlled access sounds like the BLM. 50% is too arbitrary to be compelling, what makes you pick that number?
- rorykoehler 6y ago
  It's about containment. Now we are everywhere. You fly over Malysia and Indonesia and the whole place is plantations.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    We aren’t everywhere though. And the parts you can see and fly over are the parts with people, that’s where we put airports. When you say we should limit human presence to 50% (of land?) that implies enormous development.
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      Half of all habitable land is used for agriculture. 37% by forests... much of that managed forests which are used for human resources. The ones we aren't managing we are felling, irreversibly destroying million year old ecosystems. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
krrrh 6y ago
Humans become less human and lose their understanding and capacity to value the natural world without simplistic sentimentality when they are divorced from experiencing it. There’s a balance. The world is already rewilding without segregation[1], but I’ve benefitted massively from backcountry camping and hunting, it’s turned me into an ardent conservationist, and I think we’d have a better more respectful relationship with nature if some more of us did the same. [1] https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/jan/13/nature-rebounding-land-and-ocean-sparing-through-concentrating-human-activities/ https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/jan/13/nature-rebounding-...

We should rewild 50% of the world and ban humans from entering without a permit. Permits should only be given to those with legitimate professional requirements.

eru 6y ago

Luckily, most of the globe is still wild. We have barely started colonizing the oceans after all. It would be interesting to rewild much of the land mass as well. However, politics is often against that. Eg see those heartfelt efforts to rescue dying towns in the Appalachians or the Great Plains in the US. Or the general subsidies for suburban / exurban living (like eg the whole structure of USPS).

adrianN 6y ago
We have colonized the oceans. Large trawler fleets are fishing many species to the brink of collapse.
- eru 6y ago
  We have devastated the oceans, but not colonized. Fish farming would be colonization.
rorykoehler 6y ago
Rewild means no evidence of human activity... including our trash
jamil7 6y ago
The oceans might not be colonised in a traditional sense of the word but they’ve very much felt the effects of our presence and are in pretty dire shape.
- eru 6y ago
  Yes, that's true. Alas, it's also true for many wilderness areas on land. Eg air pollution doesn't stop at national park borders.
mulmen 6y ago
The USPS provides a critical service. While some rural areas may have reached the end of their viable existence the USPS still exists to serve places where the market has not yet offered a solution. It's a critical service to the functioning and growth of a nation of our size.
- eru 6y ago
  See, that's exactly the point. If you want people to move away from those areas so that wilderness can take over, you should not subsidize them to stay there. Whether you like rewilding more or the critical service that the USPS provides, is up to you. But you should recognize that they are at least somewhat in conflict.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Yeah, no. You don't get people to move by making their lives horrible. see: coal country. The USPS is more of a service to guarantee equal opportunity than it is a subsidy. This year is a great example of that. The USPS is the organization tasked with collecting and transporting ballots. That's not the kind of thing I want entrusted to the free market. You have presented a false choice between rewilding and the USPS. They are entirely separate topics. People need mail service where they live. Taking away basic services to force them to move is inhumane.
    - eru 6y ago
      On the margin you do get more people to live in certain places or in certain ways by providing subsidies for those places and ways. Many other countries do just fine without a government monopoly on mail that subsidizes rural areas. Private carriers can serve just fine.

ur-whale 6y ago

Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but curious to know if you have thought how, practically, you'd enforce something like this?

rorykoehler 6y ago
Urban densification including urban farming in skyscrapers. Desalination would need to go mainstream too. Of course many will be upset they can't live in a pile on 4 acres. I also have little confidence this would be a popular move given the outrageous individualist fundamentalism we've managed to create in society but I am convinced it is essential to avoiding systemic collapse.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  And those of us who are living a quiet life on a small plot of land in one of those areas? Forced relocation into a physically and culturally unfamiliar place? "Sorry, you're not a part of the problem, but you live in the same area as those who are. Off you go!"? There has been attempts at mass re-locations of people before. It usually didn't turn out well.
  - strogonoff 6y ago
    Were there ever mass relocations of people done with the specific goal of preserving and re-wilding nature? I actually found the idea really interesting. Though one of my parents is living a quiet life on a small piece of land and I entertained that idea myself, I personally find the sacrifice worth it. However, some difficulties would have to be addressed first: 1. Lack of trust in each other, authorities and institutions—in some cases, deserved (rogue actors). Who has to leave first, who gets a better view from their new home in a futuristic skyscraper, entry permit fairness and enforcement (there will be long perimeters to protect, albeit it could be a good source of jobs), etc. 2. Ensuring healthy human habitat in dense urban environments (pollution, clean energy, as well as psychology). Many of those hurdles are societal/organizational/psychological, and are not liable to be solved by accelerated technical progress alone. Frustratingly, since the best time to do this is probably ASAP.

vagrantJin 6y ago

Hahaha. I dont disagree with the sentiment but I think its misplaced. People are well and truly capable of living with nature without killing whole forests. Its a matter of putting our interests above those of others that is the issue. Eg. The government permits loggers to cut down 1000 year old trees in a forest, permits mutlinational Ag companies to cut down and burn much of the forest to plant some inane plant species that has marginal benefit to squeeze out an extra 10 cents on a human consumed product because ultimately the quarterly results have to improve. All these abstractions have seemingly nothing to do with a dead forest. We should have instead, enforcable policy that puts a high price on environmental projects of any scope larger than..say an acre. It would force companies to innovate and invest in R&D. Use those big brains.

glerk 6y ago

When we grow up as a species, we should move entirely to artificial space habitats and let the Earth be a natural reserve.

mulmen 6y ago

This seems to imply we could develop half the world, which seems like a lot more than we have done today. Your description of controlled access sounds like the BLM. 50% is too arbitrary to be compelling, what makes you pick that number?

rorykoehler 6y ago
It's about containment. Now we are everywhere. You fly over Malysia and Indonesia and the whole place is plantations.
- mulmen 6y ago
  We aren’t everywhere though. And the parts you can see and fly over are the parts with people, that’s where we put airports. When you say we should limit human presence to 50% (of land?) that implies enormous development.
  - rorykoehler 6y ago
    Half of all habitable land is used for agriculture. 37% by forests... much of that managed forests which are used for human resources. The ones we aren't managing we are felling, irreversibly destroying million year old ecosystems. https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

krrrh 6y ago

Humans become less human and lose their understanding and capacity to value the natural world without simplistic sentimentality when they are divorced from experiencing it. There’s a balance. The world is already rewilding without segregation[1], but I’ve benefitted massively from backcountry camping and hunting, it’s turned me into an ardent conservationist, and I think we’d have a better more respectful relationship with nature if some more of us did the same. [1] https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/jan/13/nature-rebounding-land-and-ocean-sparing-through-concentrating-human-activities/ https://longnow.org/seminars/02015/jan/13/nature-rebounding-...