14 ms·

I think there's an argument that if an animal is having a negative effect on the ecosystem (having a negative effort on other animals) removing it can be a net

I think there's an argument that if an animal is having a negative effect on the ecosystem (having a negative effort on other animals) removing it can be a net good.

lowbloodsugar 3y ago
Humans then?
- JamesDeansSon 3y ago
  [dead]
  - eulgro 3y ago
    How exactly does the system makes humans more worthy than other animals?
    - adversaryIdiot 3y ago
      It doesnt. He hasnt controlled his human ego
    - JamesDeansSon 3y ago
      The system placed us at the top
      - eulgro 3y ago
        Except we created the system, we placed ourselves there...
  - callalex 3y ago
    >Everyone has agreed on this except for Satanists You have a dangerous lack of fundamental understanding of the topic to which you speak. I suggest you start your learning journey here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
    - JamesDeansSon 3y ago
      Who designed genetic algorithms and set in motion the process of evolution? God. Atheism is incompatible with determinism.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > Atheism is incompatible with determinism. No, its not.
        JamesDeansSon 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        No, its not. See, e.g., most of my post history. Sometimes, OTOH, completely moronic ideas are offered without any support, and without it, contradiction is all they warrant.
        JamesDeansSon 3y ago
        I won't debate any further with someone who resorts to name-calling or dismissive language. You didn't provide a proof of contradiction or any argument. I provided valid reasons and evidence to support my point of view.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > I won't debate any further You weren't debating before, just posting unsupported conclusions with no argument in support, and complaining about responses in kind.
        maxbond 3y ago
        You're right, but you are being pretty harsh and insulting, and it does distract from your point and make it just about impossible for the other commenter to hear what you're saying.
- ornornor 3y ago
  Well no, we’re special and the universe exists for our pleasure.
  - civilitty 3y ago
    It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the big bang again.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Why not? The universe is a blank canvas upon which we can write our own purpose. Human pleasure seems like as good of a start as any.
    - ornornor 3y ago
      Because we tend to do this at the expense of every other living thing. It’s also very presumptuous.
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        I think the most effective motivation to keep nature and life has historically been to maintain it for human pleasure Similarly I don't think there is anything to offend with presumption, or at least anything that cares.
        20after4 3y ago
        All the other species that aren't humans probably care.
- stickfigure 3y ago
  Sure? I mean, we obviously don't want to eliminate humans, but it would probably be nice to have fewer of them. The ZPG movement isn't terribly controversial.
- mecsred 3y ago
  We're working on it!
- myshpa 3y ago
  Not humans, but farming practices and human diets. We have to reform agriculture to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. Deforestation and farming practices (incl. pesticides/herbicides, pollution) are the main drivers of biodiversity loss. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi... The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 Two recent studies underscore the danger the meat production system poses for biodiversity.
  - pif 3y ago
    > We have to reform agriculture to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. Sure! Do you have a proposal to make agriculture more eco-friendly without impacting quantity, quality and cost of the food produced? > The key is reducing meat consumption No! If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      > Do you have a proposal to make agriculture more eco-friendly without impacting quantity, quality and cost of the food produced? Sure. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding... Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth > If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population The change is absolutely needed. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability... One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American. We don't have those extra Earths, and won't anytime soon. > the key is not to try and force change on the general population Sure, solve the biggest problem we've ever faced, but don't change a thing.
9dev 3y ago
That is such a clear example of Chesterton‘s fence, it makes me mad people can’t see it. Not by any means do we understand enough about ecosystems to justify the hubris to declare any animal as a net negative effect to the environment. In western Europe, hunters argue they need to cull deer, for example, to keep the forest in balance. That is only true because a) they make an effort to feed the animals during the winter, helping more to survive than otherwise would, and b) because natural predators have been eradicated in the previous centuries. Don’t ever trust someone that attempts to justify culling a species for the greater good.
- ehnto 3y ago
  I don't disagree that our hubris gets us in trouble, but we do have eyes, some animals when introduced cause very quick changes to ecosystems and I don't think it's hubris to say "oh fuck, we goofed". I don't condone cullings specifically but I think conservation absolutely requires controlling non-native species in certain circumstances. New Zealand has had enumerable species go extinct thanks to introduced species.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    The obvious one is usually feral cats, which end up killing birds in large numbers if they haven't dealt with cats before. And a lot of those tend to be escaped house pets.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      > feral cats, which end up killing birds in large numbers ... escaped house pets I'd argue that it's also a problem of biodiversity (at least in the U.S., don't know about New Zealand). If we hadn't eradicated almost all wolves, coyotes, foxes, birds of prey, weasels, and I don't know what else, nature would have solved the problem already.
      - accoil 3y ago
        Problem of biodiversity is one way of putting it. New Zealand did not have any mammals apart from bats. When those arrived, the native wildlife were not equipped to deal with them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoat_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoat_in_New_Zealand
barbazoo 3y ago
> I think there's an argument that if an animal is having a negative effect on the ecosystem (having a negative effort on other animals) removing it can be a net good. Are you suggesting Genocide? /s

I think there's an argument that if an animal is having a negative effect on the ecosystem (having a negative effort on other animals) removing it can be a net good.

lowbloodsugar 3y ago

Humans then?

JamesDeansSon 3y ago
[dead]
- eulgro 3y ago
  How exactly does the system makes humans more worthy than other animals?
  - adversaryIdiot 3y ago
    It doesnt. He hasnt controlled his human ego
  - JamesDeansSon 3y ago
    The system placed us at the top
    - eulgro 3y ago
      Except we created the system, we placed ourselves there...
- callalex 3y ago
  >Everyone has agreed on this except for Satanists You have a dangerous lack of fundamental understanding of the topic to which you speak. I suggest you start your learning journey here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
  - JamesDeansSon 3y ago
    Who designed genetic algorithms and set in motion the process of evolution? God. Atheism is incompatible with determinism.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Atheism is incompatible with determinism. No, its not.
      - JamesDeansSon 3y ago
        [flagged]
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        No, its not. See, e.g., most of my post history. Sometimes, OTOH, completely moronic ideas are offered without any support, and without it, contradiction is all they warrant.
        JamesDeansSon 3y ago
        I won't debate any further with someone who resorts to name-calling or dismissive language. You didn't provide a proof of contradiction or any argument. I provided valid reasons and evidence to support my point of view.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        > I won't debate any further You weren't debating before, just posting unsupported conclusions with no argument in support, and complaining about responses in kind.
        maxbond 3y ago
        You're right, but you are being pretty harsh and insulting, and it does distract from your point and make it just about impossible for the other commenter to hear what you're saying.
ornornor 3y ago
Well no, we’re special and the universe exists for our pleasure.
- civilitty 3y ago
  It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the big bang again.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Why not? The universe is a blank canvas upon which we can write our own purpose. Human pleasure seems like as good of a start as any.
  - ornornor 3y ago
    Because we tend to do this at the expense of every other living thing. It’s also very presumptuous.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I think the most effective motivation to keep nature and life has historically been to maintain it for human pleasure Similarly I don't think there is anything to offend with presumption, or at least anything that cares.
      - 20after4 3y ago
        All the other species that aren't humans probably care.
stickfigure 3y ago
Sure? I mean, we obviously don't want to eliminate humans, but it would probably be nice to have fewer of them. The ZPG movement isn't terribly controversial.
mecsred 3y ago
We're working on it!
myshpa 3y ago
Not humans, but farming practices and human diets. We have to reform agriculture to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. Deforestation and farming practices (incl. pesticides/herbicides, pollution) are the main drivers of biodiversity loss. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi... The way we eat could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 Two recent studies underscore the danger the meat production system poses for biodiversity.
- pif 3y ago
  > We have to reform agriculture to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. Sure! Do you have a proposal to make agriculture more eco-friendly without impacting quantity, quality and cost of the food produced? > The key is reducing meat consumption No! If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > Do you have a proposal to make agriculture more eco-friendly without impacting quantity, quality and cost of the food produced? Sure. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding... Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth > If you really want to achieve something, rather than just talking ecology, the key is not to try and force change on the general population The change is absolutely needed. https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability-indicators/us-environmental-footprint-factsheet https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/sustainability... One study estimates it would take just over 5 Earths to support the human population if everyone’s consumption patterns were similar to the average American. We don't have those extra Earths, and won't anytime soon. > the key is not to try and force change on the general population Sure, solve the biggest problem we've ever faced, but don't change a thing.

9dev 3y ago

That is such a clear example of Chesterton‘s fence, it makes me mad people can’t see it. Not by any means do we understand enough about ecosystems to justify the hubris to declare any animal as a net negative effect to the environment. In western Europe, hunters argue they need to cull deer, for example, to keep the forest in balance. That is only true because a) they make an effort to feed the animals during the winter, helping more to survive than otherwise would, and b) because natural predators have been eradicated in the previous centuries. Don’t ever trust someone that attempts to justify culling a species for the greater good.

ehnto 3y ago
I don't disagree that our hubris gets us in trouble, but we do have eyes, some animals when introduced cause very quick changes to ecosystems and I don't think it's hubris to say "oh fuck, we goofed". I don't condone cullings specifically but I think conservation absolutely requires controlling non-native species in certain circumstances. New Zealand has had enumerable species go extinct thanks to introduced species.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  The obvious one is usually feral cats, which end up killing birds in large numbers if they haven't dealt with cats before. And a lot of those tend to be escaped house pets.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > feral cats, which end up killing birds in large numbers ... escaped house pets I'd argue that it's also a problem of biodiversity (at least in the U.S., don't know about New Zealand). If we hadn't eradicated almost all wolves, coyotes, foxes, birds of prey, weasels, and I don't know what else, nature would have solved the problem already.
    - accoil 3y ago
      Problem of biodiversity is one way of putting it. New Zealand did not have any mammals apart from bats. When those arrived, the native wildlife were not equipped to deal with them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoat_in_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoat_in_New_Zealand

barbazoo 3y ago

> I think there's an argument that if an animal is having a negative effect on the ecosystem (having a negative effort on other animals) removing it can be a net good. Are you suggesting Genocide? /s