5 ms·

Biodiversity is important insofar as it facilitates human flourishing. Flowery poetry about An Idealized Past doesn't have anything to say about that. Therefore

Biodiversity is important insofar as it facilitates human flourishing. Flowery poetry about An Idealized Past doesn't have anything to say about that. Therefore, it is uninteresting.

oliveshell 4y ago
I'll admit here that I was biased by the apparently dismissive tone of your initial comment. This is a fair point that I agree with.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  And I'll admit that I'm exhausted by eco-nostalgia and eco-doomerism, which led me to comment dismissively. I understand how that can be off-putting and unpersuasive.
beedeebeedee 4y ago
So you believe that the whole world is only important to the extent that it serves us?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Yes, with all that implies. There may be other habitable planets in the universe but I do not care about them. I care about Earth because that is where I live. I don't think there is any meaningful trade-offs to be made between what is good for Earth the planet and what is good for humans. That doesn't mean that I want Earth to be a hyper industrialized Forge World, but my reasoning is because that would not be a good place for humans to live.
  - beedeebeedee 4y ago
    > Yes, with all that implies. I'm having a hard time responding in a way that meets the Hacker News guidelines. I don't want to attribute to you the implications (slavery, slaughter, environmental destruction, etc), because I have a hard time believing you actually mean that (or perhaps you thought I was only referring to the mineral aspect of the world and not the life that lives in it). I understand that you might object to slavery being implicit in your belief (because you make a special carve out for only humans mattering)- but understand that up until recently, in many cultures many people were not considered human. The most substantive thing I can suggest is to read Hegel's master slave dialectic, and consider the upshot- that by viewing others as only being instrumental, you inhibit the development of your own consciousness.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      You're right that I do reject your implication of extending the ethics of human slavery to non-human life and granting it shared tenant owner rights to the Earth. I find it surprising that you struggle to respond to this idea because it is not a fringe one. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it is the predominant View held by humans on this planet about their relation to the natural world. As an aside, I also reject your claim that slaves were historically considered subhuman on factual grounds. For most of human history slaves were considered humans and subjugation was justified simply as a matter of having the might and means to do so. In a historical context, the idea of slaves as subhuman is primarily a New Philosophy developed in the Antebellum South.
      - beedeebeedee 4y ago
        > I find it surprising that you struggle to respond to this idea because it is not a fringe one. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it is the predominant View held by humans on this planet about their relation to the natural world. I think you are correct that this is the predominant view held by humans, but it doesn't mean it is justified. It is hard to dispute it quickly without invoking something like god, which is something I am uncomfortable doing. What I can do is start with something like Descartes's meditation. Without his ability to invoke god, we are left with the paradox of the world being ultimately unknowable. Likewise if you start from the idea that there is a real world. At best, you become committed to the paradox that we are living within our own imaginations somehow embedded in our brains. From any other starting point, at some point in our reasoning we are led to a deep paradox, which seems to be a defining aspect of our consciousness. Ultimately, the world is unknowable and the best we can do is be honest, humble and do our best with what we have. That leads me to why I reject what we both consider to be the predominant view held by humans. If we trust natural history, we can see that the mammalian anatomy has been conserved for at least 65 million years. Mammals adapted to all kinds of environments, grew large, grew small, etc, but fundamentally, the mammalian anatomy remains the same (even the whales have essentially the same anatomy as any other mammal). As long as the physics of our world remains constant, function is determined by structure. That means that the same functions that underlie our experience underlie other mammals. The only major difference with humans is that we grew out a section of our brain (the neocortex), which gives us greater ability to visualize, synthesize the input from our senses, develop speech, and interrupt other parts of our nervous system (i.e., like using meditation to quiet the mind, dampen the response from the amygdala, etc). With that understanding, it seems deeply wrong to subjugate other consciousnesses. It seems like instead of having a "tenant owner rights" view of Earth, we should view ourselves as gardeners cultivating the planet out of a sense of beauty and love that coincides with helping ourselves and other creatures. That is one thing I am deeply committed to. Humans exist as the most exquisite and beautiful branch of life and are the greatest care-givers on this planet. We not only give of our bodies like the other mammals to nurture, and develop groups to care for individuals, we also care so much that we care about truth, and continue to grapple with it even when it seems out of reach.
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Only? No. Mostly? Yes. For at least a couple of reasons. Because we humans seem to be the only creatures that have ever existed that have even been able to pose the question of what makes Earth "important". That level of consciousness is special and worth protecting and expanding at all costs. It's more special and magically generative than any other creature that we know to exist or previously exist. Because Earth without us is a dead man walking. The complete extinction of all complex life on this planet is already baked into the future as the sun expands and boils the oceans in 0.5-1 billion years. It seems to me exceedingly unlikely that any other spacefaring civilization will emerge after us if we fail. Even if you think other forms of Earth life are more "important" than us, the continuation of our human civilization is the only chance this other life has at having a longer existence (on other worlds) than this baked in timeline.
  - beedeebeedee 4y ago
    That is a very reasonable stance, and I appreciate it being articulated. Baked into it is an appreciation and respect for life and consciousness, which I respect.
rektide 4y ago
Biodiversity & ecosystems seem obviously existentially important to the long term survival of humanity. Even if we're not sure what exactly would kill us (first) from acidifying the oceans, killing all the trees, melting the ice-caps, & killing most wild mammals. The enormous risk we've created against there being a human future. I for one hope for a sustainable flourishing, and find any other avenue not merely uninteresting, but actively malicious & evil. Global gaian awareness is absolutely required, or you are just a primitive wild mammal.

Biodiversity is important insofar as it facilitates human flourishing. Flowery poetry about An Idealized Past doesn't have anything to say about that. Therefore, it is uninteresting.

oliveshell 4y ago

I'll admit here that I was biased by the apparently dismissive tone of your initial comment. This is a fair point that I agree with.

chitowneats 4y ago
And I'll admit that I'm exhausted by eco-nostalgia and eco-doomerism, which led me to comment dismissively. I understand how that can be off-putting and unpersuasive.

beedeebeedee 4y ago

So you believe that the whole world is only important to the extent that it serves us?

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Yes, with all that implies. There may be other habitable planets in the universe but I do not care about them. I care about Earth because that is where I live. I don't think there is any meaningful trade-offs to be made between what is good for Earth the planet and what is good for humans. That doesn't mean that I want Earth to be a hyper industrialized Forge World, but my reasoning is because that would not be a good place for humans to live.
- beedeebeedee 4y ago
  > Yes, with all that implies. I'm having a hard time responding in a way that meets the Hacker News guidelines. I don't want to attribute to you the implications (slavery, slaughter, environmental destruction, etc), because I have a hard time believing you actually mean that (or perhaps you thought I was only referring to the mineral aspect of the world and not the life that lives in it). I understand that you might object to slavery being implicit in your belief (because you make a special carve out for only humans mattering)- but understand that up until recently, in many cultures many people were not considered human. The most substantive thing I can suggest is to read Hegel's master slave dialectic, and consider the upshot- that by viewing others as only being instrumental, you inhibit the development of your own consciousness.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    You're right that I do reject your implication of extending the ethics of human slavery to non-human life and granting it shared tenant owner rights to the Earth. I find it surprising that you struggle to respond to this idea because it is not a fringe one. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it is the predominant View held by humans on this planet about their relation to the natural world. As an aside, I also reject your claim that slaves were historically considered subhuman on factual grounds. For most of human history slaves were considered humans and subjugation was justified simply as a matter of having the might and means to do so. In a historical context, the idea of slaves as subhuman is primarily a New Philosophy developed in the Antebellum South.
    - beedeebeedee 4y ago
      > I find it surprising that you struggle to respond to this idea because it is not a fringe one. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that it is the predominant View held by humans on this planet about their relation to the natural world. I think you are correct that this is the predominant view held by humans, but it doesn't mean it is justified. It is hard to dispute it quickly without invoking something like god, which is something I am uncomfortable doing. What I can do is start with something like Descartes's meditation. Without his ability to invoke god, we are left with the paradox of the world being ultimately unknowable. Likewise if you start from the idea that there is a real world. At best, you become committed to the paradox that we are living within our own imaginations somehow embedded in our brains. From any other starting point, at some point in our reasoning we are led to a deep paradox, which seems to be a defining aspect of our consciousness. Ultimately, the world is unknowable and the best we can do is be honest, humble and do our best with what we have. That leads me to why I reject what we both consider to be the predominant view held by humans. If we trust natural history, we can see that the mammalian anatomy has been conserved for at least 65 million years. Mammals adapted to all kinds of environments, grew large, grew small, etc, but fundamentally, the mammalian anatomy remains the same (even the whales have essentially the same anatomy as any other mammal). As long as the physics of our world remains constant, function is determined by structure. That means that the same functions that underlie our experience underlie other mammals. The only major difference with humans is that we grew out a section of our brain (the neocortex), which gives us greater ability to visualize, synthesize the input from our senses, develop speech, and interrupt other parts of our nervous system (i.e., like using meditation to quiet the mind, dampen the response from the amygdala, etc). With that understanding, it seems deeply wrong to subjugate other consciousnesses. It seems like instead of having a "tenant owner rights" view of Earth, we should view ourselves as gardeners cultivating the planet out of a sense of beauty and love that coincides with helping ourselves and other creatures. That is one thing I am deeply committed to. Humans exist as the most exquisite and beautiful branch of life and are the greatest care-givers on this planet. We not only give of our bodies like the other mammals to nurture, and develop groups to care for individuals, we also care so much that we care about truth, and continue to grapple with it even when it seems out of reach.
anonporridge 4y ago
Only? No. Mostly? Yes. For at least a couple of reasons. Because we humans seem to be the only creatures that have ever existed that have even been able to pose the question of what makes Earth "important". That level of consciousness is special and worth protecting and expanding at all costs. It's more special and magically generative than any other creature that we know to exist or previously exist. Because Earth without us is a dead man walking. The complete extinction of all complex life on this planet is already baked into the future as the sun expands and boils the oceans in 0.5-1 billion years. It seems to me exceedingly unlikely that any other spacefaring civilization will emerge after us if we fail. Even if you think other forms of Earth life are more "important" than us, the continuation of our human civilization is the only chance this other life has at having a longer existence (on other worlds) than this baked in timeline.
- beedeebeedee 4y ago
  That is a very reasonable stance, and I appreciate it being articulated. Baked into it is an appreciation and respect for life and consciousness, which I respect.

rektide 4y ago

Biodiversity & ecosystems seem obviously existentially important to the long term survival of humanity. Even if we're not sure what exactly would kill us (first) from acidifying the oceans, killing all the trees, melting the ice-caps, & killing most wild mammals. The enormous risk we've created against there being a human future. I for one hope for a sustainable flourishing, and find any other avenue not merely uninteresting, but actively malicious & evil. Global gaian awareness is absolutely required, or you are just a primitive wild mammal.