4 ms·

The Guardian is just a distribution channel. Academics and the conservation groups that back them stand to benefit by sounding an alarm since that helps them ra

The Guardian is just a distribution channel. Academics and the conservation groups that back them stand to benefit by sounding an alarm since that helps them raise funds and get grants. Not a judgement on the legitimacy of the concern but that's just the incentive behind these articles.

lashloch 5y ago
thanks. i was about to send a conservation group money but then i learned they might have the ulterior motive of making the world better
- throwaway8689 5y ago
  I read the parent comment as neutral or good. Conservationists need publicity to raise funds to do their work.
  - machinelearning 5y ago
    Yea meant to be a neutral comment. Sometimes raising the alarm is justified.
- machinelearning 5y ago
  I don't get the snarky comment, looks like you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough
akdav 5y ago
Facepalm
mellavora 5y ago
ok, I'll try a serious answer instead of a snarky one. You point out the incentive behind these articles, and call out the Guardian as a distribution channel for academics and conservation groups. Without a distribution channel, how should academics and conservation groups get their message out? Which message is better for our society, one driven by the academics who have been warning us of the danger of radical climate change, of mass poisoning of our homes and environment, of total ecosystem collapse (birds- down 29% https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/120 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/120, fish, down over 70% https://www.geographyrealm.com/study-finds-staggering-decline-in-marine-fishery-biomass/ https://www.geographyrealm.com/study-finds-staggering-declin..., amphibians, 40% of species on the edge of extinction in 2012 and things have only gotten worse since https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1406 https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1406, insect populations, down 80% https://www.pnas.org/content/118/2/e2023989118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/2/e2023989118, ... shall I continue? Do you know what total ecosystem collapse looks like? or perhaps the message of Netflix or Disney? Or the message/distribution channel of fake news bent on destroying Western democracy? Or the message/distribution channel used to keep us calm while we commit mass suicide? Sorry, I'm ranting. Yes, your charge is correct. The Guardian is an important distribution channel for the sources which are trying to get us to stop killing our planet, our home, our selves. And perhaps it is good to have such a channel. -- hey, sorry, just saw that you intended your comment to be neutral. Forgive me for letting my grief carry me away.

lashloch 5y ago

thanks. i was about to send a conservation group money but then i learned they might have the ulterior motive of making the world better

throwaway8689 5y ago
I read the parent comment as neutral or good. Conservationists need publicity to raise funds to do their work.
- machinelearning 5y ago
  Yea meant to be a neutral comment. Sometimes raising the alarm is justified.
machinelearning 5y ago
I don't get the snarky comment, looks like you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough

akdav 5y ago

Facepalm

mellavora 5y ago

ok, I'll try a serious answer instead of a snarky one. You point out the incentive behind these articles, and call out the Guardian as a distribution channel for academics and conservation groups. Without a distribution channel, how should academics and conservation groups get their message out? Which message is better for our society, one driven by the academics who have been warning us of the danger of radical climate change, of mass poisoning of our homes and environment, of total ecosystem collapse (birds- down 29% https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/120 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/120, fish, down over 70% https://www.geographyrealm.com/study-finds-staggering-decline-in-marine-fishery-biomass/ https://www.geographyrealm.com/study-finds-staggering-declin..., amphibians, 40% of species on the edge of extinction in 2012 and things have only gotten worse since https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1406 https://journals.openedition.org/sapiens/1406, insect populations, down 80% https://www.pnas.org/content/118/2/e2023989118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/2/e2023989118, ... shall I continue? Do you know what total ecosystem collapse looks like? or perhaps the message of Netflix or Disney? Or the message/distribution channel of fake news bent on destroying Western democracy? Or the message/distribution channel used to keep us calm while we commit mass suicide? Sorry, I'm ranting. Yes, your charge is correct. The Guardian is an important distribution channel for the sources which are trying to get us to stop killing our planet, our home, our selves. And perhaps it is good to have such a channel. -- hey, sorry, just saw that you intended your comment to be neutral. Forgive me for letting my grief carry me away.