6 ms·

> Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does. Biodiversity is an intrinsic aspect of ecosystem stability. The earth's functioning

> Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does. Biodiversity is an intrinsic aspect of ecosystem stability. The earth's functioning ecosystem is literally necessary for life on earth. All that "free" value in the form of plants and animals that produce our food, photosynthesizing organisms that produce air, decomposers that produce soil, etc is the result of coevolution of diverse organisms. When that system becomes unstanble or unbalanced then mass extinction follows. The human economic ecosystem is built on top of a functioning biosphere. You can't just replace what the biosphere provides with industry or trade.

alexey-salmin 3y ago
[flagged]
- richbell 3y ago
  > No, extinction of species due to infections is not a planetary catastrophe. It's natural and perennial. It is reductive to describe invasive species with no predators destroying native crops and forests as "natural."
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    That happened thousands of times (if not millions, hard to estimate) before human race came to existence. How on earth can it be unnatural?
    - ThatGuy42 3y ago
      In the past species were limited by how far they could walk/fly/swim. Now humans can put any species anywhere in the world at any time (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).
      - alexey-salmin 3y ago
        Well not that limited apparently since the whole world is populated. Humans speed up the spread of species (contributing to biodiversity lol) but the phenomenon itself is not new.
        ldng 3y ago
        And at which point do YOU not realize the speed is the issue ? Why is it that people that should know better, because they have all the capacities to, are the worst climato-skeptics ?! Unbelievable.
        alexey-salmin 3y ago
        So, can you share your view why speed is an issue?
        PsylentKnight 3y ago
        1. The rate of spread matters. Evolutionary adaptation is slow. 2. It's not just the speed, humans makes movements possible that were previously unlikely or impossible. Argentine ants are currently wreaking havoc across the globe. Do you think they would have ever found their way from Argentina to Australia and Hawaii without the help of humans? 3. > contributing to biodiversity lol Source needed
        alexey-salmin 3y ago
        1. Speed does matter, however high-speed changes in the environment are neither unnatural nor unprecedented. 2. If they are successful as invasive species, then yes most likely that would happen given enough time. Even the most remote islands in the ocean are populated with life forms that are too modern to be explained with plate tectonics. Nature has it's ways (besides evolving humans). 3. As you noticed humans spread all kinds of viruses, insects, blights and other unfortunate beings. Like them or not, they are as valid as a part of the biosphere as the chestnut tree.
  - Footkerchief 3y ago
    Crops are domesticated by definition -- hard to call them natural in the first place.
- ramblenode 3y ago
  > A word salad devoid of any concrete knowledge The parent's claim was "Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does." If you or the parent want to make a more concrete and specific claim than this, I will happily reply in kind. > No, extinction of species due to infections is not a planetary catastrophe. It's natural and perennial. Indeed, but our human economy is built on top of relatively stable and predictable natural circumstances. If there is mass ecosystem collapse, the economy is coming down with it. If you don't believe this check out the graveyard of civlizations that overfarmed, overfished, clearcut forests, or otherwise weren't good stewards of their local ecology.
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    Correct, but that only means that our economy is a temporary phenomenon. Mass ecosystem collapses happen regularly whether we want it or not. Most of the past civilizations reached the graveyard due to very natural causes like 200 years long draughts. "How to best adapt to changes" is an interesting question which I'd happily discuss. "How to prevent changes" is a meaningless question.
    - Gud 3y ago
      Those civilizations were riding camels and horses, they didn't make rockets. Very different scenarios.
      - zaphar 3y ago
        Not staking a claim on either side of this debate but how exactly do those two things being different affect the outcome of the debate?
- ThatGuy42 3y ago
  > A word salad devoid of any concrete knowledge Sorry, but I'm a bit baffled why you're being so insulting when you clearly don't know much about the subject at hand. Yes, extinctions happen naturally. Also yes, humans are causing extinction rates 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural extinction rates[1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
  - alexey-salmin 3y ago
    > Also yes, humans are causing extinction rates 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural extinction rates[1] > 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction I'm well aware of the subject. If you open the link you'll see that the baseline is not "natural extinction rates" but "background extinction rates". That is rates during the periods of time when environment doesn't change. When environment does change however the rates are orders of magnitude higher. We live in the times of change. Whether the Holocene extinction is on the level of the big six or on the level of other 30+ smaller known extinction events is up to the debate. Either way it's nothing new. You are here today thanks to all these extinction events, be grateful not to be a trilobite. The comment I was replying above just throws together a bunch of words that sound good, like "diversity" and "sustainable", without any attempt at an actual analysis of the situation. That is not appreciated.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - PsylentKnight 3y ago
      > When environment does change however the rates are orders of magnitude higher. We live in the times of change. If you open the link you'll see that the current "change" is caused by humans. Spreading invasive species isn't the most significant cause, but it is a cause. So I don't see how that contests what I said.
      - alexey-salmin 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

alexey-salmin 3y ago

[flagged]

richbell 3y ago
> No, extinction of species due to infections is not a planetary catastrophe. It's natural and perennial. It is reductive to describe invasive species with no predators destroying native crops and forests as "natural."
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  That happened thousands of times (if not millions, hard to estimate) before human race came to existence. How on earth can it be unnatural?
  - ThatGuy42 3y ago
    In the past species were limited by how far they could walk/fly/swim. Now humans can put any species anywhere in the world at any time (sometimes intentionally, sometimes not).
    - alexey-salmin 3y ago
      Well not that limited apparently since the whole world is populated. Humans speed up the spread of species (contributing to biodiversity lol) but the phenomenon itself is not new.
      - ldng 3y ago
        And at which point do YOU not realize the speed is the issue ? Why is it that people that should know better, because they have all the capacities to, are the worst climato-skeptics ?! Unbelievable.
        alexey-salmin 3y ago
        So, can you share your view why speed is an issue?
      - PsylentKnight 3y ago
        1. The rate of spread matters. Evolutionary adaptation is slow. 2. It's not just the speed, humans makes movements possible that were previously unlikely or impossible. Argentine ants are currently wreaking havoc across the globe. Do you think they would have ever found their way from Argentina to Australia and Hawaii without the help of humans? 3. > contributing to biodiversity lol Source needed
        alexey-salmin 3y ago
        1. Speed does matter, however high-speed changes in the environment are neither unnatural nor unprecedented. 2. If they are successful as invasive species, then yes most likely that would happen given enough time. Even the most remote islands in the ocean are populated with life forms that are too modern to be explained with plate tectonics. Nature has it's ways (besides evolving humans). 3. As you noticed humans spread all kinds of viruses, insects, blights and other unfortunate beings. Like them or not, they are as valid as a part of the biosphere as the chestnut tree.
- Footkerchief 3y ago
  Crops are domesticated by definition -- hard to call them natural in the first place.
ramblenode 3y ago
> A word salad devoid of any concrete knowledge The parent's claim was "Biodiversity does not directly benefit everyone, while global trade does." If you or the parent want to make a more concrete and specific claim than this, I will happily reply in kind. > No, extinction of species due to infections is not a planetary catastrophe. It's natural and perennial. Indeed, but our human economy is built on top of relatively stable and predictable natural circumstances. If there is mass ecosystem collapse, the economy is coming down with it. If you don't believe this check out the graveyard of civlizations that overfarmed, overfished, clearcut forests, or otherwise weren't good stewards of their local ecology.
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  Correct, but that only means that our economy is a temporary phenomenon. Mass ecosystem collapses happen regularly whether we want it or not. Most of the past civilizations reached the graveyard due to very natural causes like 200 years long draughts. "How to best adapt to changes" is an interesting question which I'd happily discuss. "How to prevent changes" is a meaningless question.
  - Gud 3y ago
    Those civilizations were riding camels and horses, they didn't make rockets. Very different scenarios.
    - zaphar 3y ago
      Not staking a claim on either side of this debate but how exactly do those two things being different affect the outcome of the debate?
ThatGuy42 3y ago
> A word salad devoid of any concrete knowledge Sorry, but I'm a bit baffled why you're being so insulting when you clearly don't know much about the subject at hand. Yes, extinctions happen naturally. Also yes, humans are causing extinction rates 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural extinction rates[1] 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
- alexey-salmin 3y ago
  > Also yes, humans are causing extinction rates 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural extinction rates[1] > 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction I'm well aware of the subject. If you open the link you'll see that the baseline is not "natural extinction rates" but "background extinction rates". That is rates during the periods of time when environment doesn't change. When environment does change however the rates are orders of magnitude higher. We live in the times of change. Whether the Holocene extinction is on the level of the big six or on the level of other 30+ smaller known extinction events is up to the debate. Either way it's nothing new. You are here today thanks to all these extinction events, be grateful not to be a trilobite. The comment I was replying above just throws together a bunch of words that sound good, like "diversity" and "sustainable", without any attempt at an actual analysis of the situation. That is not appreciated.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - PsylentKnight 3y ago
    > When environment does change however the rates are orders of magnitude higher. We live in the times of change. If you open the link you'll see that the current "change" is caused by humans. Spreading invasive species isn't the most significant cause, but it is a cause. So I don't see how that contests what I said.
    - alexey-salmin 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]