3 ms·

That only makes sense if you're willing to commit to it. "Leave areas alone and let nature do its thing" can't just mean "don't run deliberate tree-planting eff

by abeppu 3y ago

That only makes sense if you're willing to commit to it. "Leave areas alone and let nature do its thing" can't just mean "don't run deliberate tree-planting efforts with short-sighted planing". Actually leaving stuff alone and letting nature work would involve us retreating from the area, not developing the land, not spraying insecticides and herbicides, not introducing invasive species, not polluting the ground water, not putting extra particulates into the air, _certainly_ not continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere. So the "just" part of" just leave areas alone, is asking quite a lot. That's not to say it's wrong ... but it's more ambitious than e.g. net-zero goals. In some sense, it's exactly 2x as ambitious as E. O. Wilson's "Half-Earth" proposal.

bluGill 3y ago
The existence of invasive species make even that plan questionable. A lot of trees are dead because of invasives that are still, so even if you plant it, it will die again. There are a lot of trees and invasives. Sometimes if we plant trees and give them a few years of active removal of the invasives they will grow strong enough to out compete the invasive, but if you don't remove the invasive they will be chocked out and die. However only sometimes.
- hosh 3y ago
  "Invasive" are another idea I think are widely misunderstood by the public. I think it is more about how many ecological relationship something has with other species within the local ecosystem. Something without a lot of interactions would just take resources and contribute nothing back to the ecosystem would degrade an ecosystem until there are adaptations to include that species within the ecosystem. Contribution could be food for other species. They might provide habitat. Maybe they help spread seeds, or distribute nutrients for plants. And yes, yields for humans too. By that understanding, I would say that the modern human is probably the most successful invasive specie across many ecosystems. And it isn't that, I am advocating that we get rid of the humans within those ecosystems, but find ways for humans to participate within that local ecosystem. Once those relationships are established, it is better for that local ecosystem to have humans than to not have humans.

by abeppu 3y ago

bluGill 3y ago

The existence of invasive species make even that plan questionable. A lot of trees are dead because of invasives that are still, so even if you plant it, it will die again. There are a lot of trees and invasives. Sometimes if we plant trees and give them a few years of active removal of the invasives they will grow strong enough to out compete the invasive, but if you don't remove the invasive they will be chocked out and die. However only sometimes.

hosh 3y ago
"Invasive" are another idea I think are widely misunderstood by the public. I think it is more about how many ecological relationship something has with other species within the local ecosystem. Something without a lot of interactions would just take resources and contribute nothing back to the ecosystem would degrade an ecosystem until there are adaptations to include that species within the ecosystem. Contribution could be food for other species. They might provide habitat. Maybe they help spread seeds, or distribute nutrients for plants. And yes, yields for humans too. By that understanding, I would say that the modern human is probably the most successful invasive specie across many ecosystems. And it isn't that, I am advocating that we get rid of the humans within those ecosystems, but find ways for humans to participate within that local ecosystem. Once those relationships are established, it is better for that local ecosystem to have humans than to not have humans.