3 ms·

Not to mention that they appeal to arguments like "we must protect nature". Nature couldn't care less about human's existence. Our planet has seen astroid strik

Not to mention that they appeal to arguments like "we must protect nature". Nature couldn't care less about human's existence. Our planet has seen astroid strikes that caused way more harm to ecosystems than we will ever do. The problem is our (as in the human's) environment and not exploiting it to the point where we kill ourselves out of existence. A bit of beer is okay, a lot of beer can cause a nasty hangover, too much beer and you kill yourself.

nend 6y ago
"Protecting nature" isn't just about not destroying ourselves though. It wasn't even the primary reason in the modern america nature movement (and by modern I mean starting with the John Muir/Teddy roosevelt era, when some of these large dams started being built). It was about keeping these places available to be enjoyed by everyone, not exploited for profits and destroyed for the benefit of the few. It's a public good and public resource.
- timr 6y ago
  > It was about keeping these places available to be enjoyed by everyone, not exploited for profits and destroyed for the benefit of the few. It's a public good and public resource. Of course, let's not forget that John Muir was the primary opponent of the O'Shaughnessy Dam (Hetch Hetchy), which is a public resource (water supply for San Francisco). Obviously, there are examples of protecting nature against private encroachment as well...but even if you set those aside, the core tension exists: we always have to prioritize between competing goals. Folks like Muir prioritize nature for nature's sake. Others prioritize giving water to millions of people. Neither group is wrong.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Nature for natures sake is largely a straw man though. Factories prefer to dump waste into the air that people want to breathe. They want to dump waste into rivers people want to drink or fish from etc. Protecting nature is both protecting ourselves and our interests. Sometimes extreme environmental harm comes with minimal benefit to anyone. Other times it’s the reverse where minimal harm results in vast benefits such as with the GPS network, generally it’s more balanced. If anything the environmental argument is nature is extremely valuable, be sure the trade off is a net win for society.
  - nend 6y ago
    >Folks like Muir prioritize nature for nature's sake. Not really. Muir argued that nature provided "spiritual nourishment" to people. Like I said in another comment, the argument was that nature was a public resource, so should be preserved so everyone could benefit and use the resource. Preserving "nature for natures sake" is a much more modern argument. >Others prioritize giving water to millions of people. Neither group is wrong. Given that the discussion has moved from "Is it worthwhile to protect nature from exploitation so all can enjoy it?" to include "Are we going to destroy the climate and with it our society", I think it's safe to say one group was wrong.
    - timr 6y ago
      > Not really. Muir argued that nature provided "spiritual nourishment" to people. Like I said in another comment, the argument was that nature was a public resource, so should be preserved so everyone could benefit and use the resource. Sure, fine. I'm not trying to re-characterize Muir's beliefs for the sake of an argument. I'm agreeing that he had a reason to think nature itself was a public good. But then, so is the water supply. There's an inherent tension. Attempts to ignore this tension are over-simplifying the problem. > Given that the discussion has moved from "Is it worthwhile to protect nature from exploitation so all can enjoy it?" to include "Are we going to destroy the climate and with it our society", I think it's safe to say one group was wrong. Maybe. It doesn't change the question of whether or not Hetch Hetchy should exist, or if cattle should graze on public lands, or any of a thousand other issues of the same shape that have existed forever. Also, frankly, there are plenty of folks who think the benefits of mitigating global warming are not worth the costs: if you believe that there's any limit on what we might do to stop the phenomenon, then you're one of them. It's a continuum, and absolutist positions on either side of the issue are more heat than light. As per usual, we will end up in some middle ground as a society that satisfies nobody completely.
soulofmischief 6y ago
What is nature? The rocks, the trees, the wind? Or the living and breathing animals who have just as much right to coexist on this planet as we do?
- nullsense 6y ago
  Rights are a man made thing.
  - soulofmischief 6y ago
    By "just as much right", I mean to say that we as humans scarcely have a "right" to this land either. So what gives us the "right" to assert our dominance over other creatures to the point of extreme detriment? When does it stop being simple predatory domination and become something sinister and wicked?
Johnny555 6y ago
Nature couldn't care less about human's existence While that's true, that's not a reason to ignore nature -- "nature" evolved over thousands of years to stay in balance. When man makes significant changes (like draining wetlands to turn into agriculture), then that balance is broken, and you can end up with catastrophic floods in developed areas. Nature doesn't really care if new areas get flooded, that's just a new state of nature. But all of the people that were flooded out of their town care that the flood patterns changed due to the wetland loss.

nend 6y ago

"Protecting nature" isn't just about not destroying ourselves though. It wasn't even the primary reason in the modern america nature movement (and by modern I mean starting with the John Muir/Teddy roosevelt era, when some of these large dams started being built). It was about keeping these places available to be enjoyed by everyone, not exploited for profits and destroyed for the benefit of the few. It's a public good and public resource.

timr 6y ago
> It was about keeping these places available to be enjoyed by everyone, not exploited for profits and destroyed for the benefit of the few. It's a public good and public resource. Of course, let's not forget that John Muir was the primary opponent of the O'Shaughnessy Dam (Hetch Hetchy), which is a public resource (water supply for San Francisco). Obviously, there are examples of protecting nature against private encroachment as well...but even if you set those aside, the core tension exists: we always have to prioritize between competing goals. Folks like Muir prioritize nature for nature's sake. Others prioritize giving water to millions of people. Neither group is wrong.
- Retric 6y ago
  Nature for natures sake is largely a straw man though. Factories prefer to dump waste into the air that people want to breathe. They want to dump waste into rivers people want to drink or fish from etc. Protecting nature is both protecting ourselves and our interests. Sometimes extreme environmental harm comes with minimal benefit to anyone. Other times it’s the reverse where minimal harm results in vast benefits such as with the GPS network, generally it’s more balanced. If anything the environmental argument is nature is extremely valuable, be sure the trade off is a net win for society.
- nend 6y ago
  >Folks like Muir prioritize nature for nature's sake. Not really. Muir argued that nature provided "spiritual nourishment" to people. Like I said in another comment, the argument was that nature was a public resource, so should be preserved so everyone could benefit and use the resource. Preserving "nature for natures sake" is a much more modern argument. >Others prioritize giving water to millions of people. Neither group is wrong. Given that the discussion has moved from "Is it worthwhile to protect nature from exploitation so all can enjoy it?" to include "Are we going to destroy the climate and with it our society", I think it's safe to say one group was wrong.
  - timr 6y ago
    > Not really. Muir argued that nature provided "spiritual nourishment" to people. Like I said in another comment, the argument was that nature was a public resource, so should be preserved so everyone could benefit and use the resource. Sure, fine. I'm not trying to re-characterize Muir's beliefs for the sake of an argument. I'm agreeing that he had a reason to think nature itself was a public good. But then, so is the water supply. There's an inherent tension. Attempts to ignore this tension are over-simplifying the problem. > Given that the discussion has moved from "Is it worthwhile to protect nature from exploitation so all can enjoy it?" to include "Are we going to destroy the climate and with it our society", I think it's safe to say one group was wrong. Maybe. It doesn't change the question of whether or not Hetch Hetchy should exist, or if cattle should graze on public lands, or any of a thousand other issues of the same shape that have existed forever. Also, frankly, there are plenty of folks who think the benefits of mitigating global warming are not worth the costs: if you believe that there's any limit on what we might do to stop the phenomenon, then you're one of them. It's a continuum, and absolutist positions on either side of the issue are more heat than light. As per usual, we will end up in some middle ground as a society that satisfies nobody completely.

soulofmischief 6y ago

What is nature? The rocks, the trees, the wind? Or the living and breathing animals who have just as much right to coexist on this planet as we do?

nullsense 6y ago
Rights are a man made thing.
- soulofmischief 6y ago
  By "just as much right", I mean to say that we as humans scarcely have a "right" to this land either. So what gives us the "right" to assert our dominance over other creatures to the point of extreme detriment? When does it stop being simple predatory domination and become something sinister and wicked?

Johnny555 6y ago

Nature couldn't care less about human's existence While that's true, that's not a reason to ignore nature -- "nature" evolved over thousands of years to stay in balance. When man makes significant changes (like draining wetlands to turn into agriculture), then that balance is broken, and you can end up with catastrophic floods in developed areas. Nature doesn't really care if new areas get flooded, that's just a new state of nature. But all of the people that were flooded out of their town care that the flood patterns changed due to the wetland loss.