3 ms·

So screw the wildlife? Isn't that part of the concern about climate change - wildlife and ecosystem conservation?

TeMPOraL 4y ago
Wildlife and ecosystem conservation can be roughly divided into two areas of interest: 1. Functional - all the complex interactions and feedback loops that make this planet habitable and comfortable for humanity. 2. Entertainment - look at all those beautiful colors, watch all these creatures frolicking (and ignore when they try to brutally slaughter each other). The climate crisis threatens both, but it makes sense to focus on the first one first. Yes, it's human-centric, but who-else-centric should it be instead? There's hardly a point in preserving some wildlife if we erase ourselves from the universe in the process. (At least, I haven't heard any convincing argument made by alien conservationists or future intelligent time-traveling beings that would arise on Earth after us.)
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  You didn't mention: 3. Restoring species of commercial importance. In reality that probably the number 1 reason, as unfortunate as that might be.
- jl6 4y ago
  I don’t think there’s a simple way of distinguishing your two categories. “Complex interactions and feedback loops” covers a lot of territory.
- titzer 4y ago
  This is like focusing on preserving skin on the portions of your body not already covered by clothes, and fuck the rest.
  - TeMPOraL 4y ago
    No, it's like ignoring aestheics of hair and fingernails when rest of the body is in danger.
    - titzer 4y ago
      What if we screwed up the classification of fingernails versus internal organs and focused on the wrong things? The fact is that Earth is a huge, vastly interconnected ecosystem that is entering a long spiraling crash, due to us, and we aren't smart enough to figure out what is a support beam and what is a weathervane.
      - TeMPOraL 4y ago
        If you go far enough into this "what if" thinking, suddenly it's not clear if the ecosystem is collapsing. After all, how would we know? Maybe we screwed up the classification? I propose that perhaps we do know enough, and the problem is that at social / economic level, we fail to prioritize what needs to be done.
        titzer 4y ago
        > I propose that perhaps we do know enough, and the problem is that at social / economic level, we fail to prioritize what needs to be done. We could quibble about the first part (for one, species are disappearing faster than we can study them, so there is really no way to be sure we know fuck all about how things work), but the second part is clear. We aren't prioritizing anything but economic growth. We can't even conscience using less energy, like e.g. the amount of energy (per capita) our parents or grandparents used. Like leaf blowers. FFS, unless you are a lawn care service, most people could get by with raking.
        cpursley 4y ago
        The biggest issue in North America imo is that our cities and build environments are all wrong. Suburbia, oversized homes, big oversized SUVs, no serious transit option - all require massive amounts of energy. And as a pretty hard core libertarian and capitalist, I'd say this situation arose mainly due to government incentives (cheap land via interstate highway system, cheap mortgages and tax credits, etc).
robertlagrant 4y ago
> Isn't that part of the concern about climate change - wildlife and ecosystem conservation? It is, but more from the point of view of the idea that the climate changing will affect things everywhere, and we should prevent that, rather than every action we take should improve the lot of a local habitat.

Wildlife and ecosystem conservation can be roughly divided into two areas of interest: 1. Functional - all the complex interactions and feedback loops that make this planet habitable and comfortable for humanity. 2. Entertainment - look at all those beautiful colors, watch all these creatures frolicking (and ignore when they try to brutally slaughter each other). The climate crisis threatens both, but it makes sense to focus on the first one first. Yes, it's human-centric, but who-else-centric should it be instead? There's hardly a point in preserving some wildlife if we erase ourselves from the universe in the process. (At least, I haven't heard any convincing argument made by alien conservationists or future intelligent time-traveling beings that would arise on Earth after us.)

VBprogrammer 4y ago
You didn't mention: 3. Restoring species of commercial importance. In reality that probably the number 1 reason, as unfortunate as that might be.
jl6 4y ago
I don’t think there’s a simple way of distinguishing your two categories. “Complex interactions and feedback loops” covers a lot of territory.
titzer 4y ago
This is like focusing on preserving skin on the portions of your body not already covered by clothes, and fuck the rest.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  No, it's like ignoring aestheics of hair and fingernails when rest of the body is in danger.
  - titzer 4y ago
    What if we screwed up the classification of fingernails versus internal organs and focused on the wrong things? The fact is that Earth is a huge, vastly interconnected ecosystem that is entering a long spiraling crash, due to us, and we aren't smart enough to figure out what is a support beam and what is a weathervane.
    - TeMPOraL 4y ago
      If you go far enough into this "what if" thinking, suddenly it's not clear if the ecosystem is collapsing. After all, how would we know? Maybe we screwed up the classification? I propose that perhaps we do know enough, and the problem is that at social / economic level, we fail to prioritize what needs to be done.
      - titzer 4y ago
        > I propose that perhaps we do know enough, and the problem is that at social / economic level, we fail to prioritize what needs to be done. We could quibble about the first part (for one, species are disappearing faster than we can study them, so there is really no way to be sure we know fuck all about how things work), but the second part is clear. We aren't prioritizing anything but economic growth. We can't even conscience using less energy, like e.g. the amount of energy (per capita) our parents or grandparents used. Like leaf blowers. FFS, unless you are a lawn care service, most people could get by with raking.
        cpursley 4y ago
        The biggest issue in North America imo is that our cities and build environments are all wrong. Suburbia, oversized homes, big oversized SUVs, no serious transit option - all require massive amounts of energy. And as a pretty hard core libertarian and capitalist, I'd say this situation arose mainly due to government incentives (cheap land via interstate highway system, cheap mortgages and tax credits, etc).

robertlagrant 4y ago

> Isn't that part of the concern about climate change - wildlife and ecosystem conservation? It is, but more from the point of view of the idea that the climate changing will affect things everywhere, and we should prevent that, rather than every action we take should improve the lot of a local habitat.