4 ms·
The vast majority of the human race plays just fine with nature. It is the extremely few extremely rich humans that are abusing nature.
by fmbb 2y ago
The vast majority of the human race plays just fine with nature.
It is the extremely few extremely rich humans that are abusing nature.
- amelius 2y agoYeah but we all keep feeding the monster.
- Retric 2y agoMowing shows a general disregard for nature by most people. People generally prefer an unnatural environment that at best mimics nature without any inconvenience. Even in parks well maintained and clearly marked trails see vastly more traffic than people just picking a random path through the woods. People seem to desire hiking trails of arbitrary distances not to actually explore.
- MrMcCall 2y agoWe have so little respect for the fungal colonies in the leaf litter that process the organic matter back into sustenance for the trees.
- bmitc 2y agoThe point of trails in parks is to preserve nature and to localize and constrain the damage to it.
- thfuran 2y agoAnd some parks expressly forbid leaving the trails for that reason.
- Retric 2y agoYes and no, over a full year there’s ~6 visits to a national park per acre. Damage is a function of how much people concentrate in specific areas not an inevitable result of how many people visit parks. You need trails for extreme attractions like old faithful or tiny parks near major metro area, but it’s fine to go far off the beaten path as nowhere close to enough people do so to meaningfully impact what’s there. But that gets back to my point people in general aren’t looking to experience nature. They want those scenic overlooks, waterfalls, etc not a random spot.
- bmitc 2y agoSeveral, if not most, of the plants are extremely senstitive to being trampled on and take many months and years to recover. So even a single trek off the beaten path by a few people or even one person will damage the plant life. It will also disrupt animal life and potentially adjust travel patterns. For example, moss and young ferns are extremely sensitive and fragile. People should not go off paths.
- Retric 2y agoThat really only applies to moderate traffic area. Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve sees ~10,000 people per year and covers 8,472,506 acres. At the other end Grand Canyon National Park sees ~4.5 million visitors there’s a world of difference between them. But even the Grand Canyon National Park has 1,217,262 acres the majority of which is seeing below 1 person per year. It’s hard to track someone walking through an area after even just a week, the actual impact from an individual visit is tiny, it’s only at scale that there’s issues. Delicate plants taking years to recover isn’t an issue when a random square foot is unlikely to see 2 visitors in 1,000 years on average.
- 2y ago
- deadbabe 2y agoYou do not have to be rich. Anyone choosing to eat meat is feeding into the system of abuse and torture. Anyone.
- fmbb 2y agoSure. But that’s another discussion than the one about balance in nature.
- hiatus 2y agoI take it you do not live in a food desert where access to fresh produce is limited.
- deadbabe 2y agoThat is no excuse.
- perching_aix 2y agoYou don't sound like you'd accept anything as an excuse, so that's really not saying a whole lot...
- PretzelPirate 2y agoWhether or not you love in a food desert, the result of your actions are the same. You may have no choice, but you're still financially supporting animal cruelty. The action is cruel, not the people committing it.
- block_dagger 2y agoYou can move.
- hombre_fatal 2y agoYou don't need fresh produce to not eat animals. Beans, whole grains, potatoes, canned vegetables are the cheapest foods around. These people already weren't eating fresh produce, so why would they need fresh produce to swap meat for beans? Though I think debating your idea of exceptions is a red herring unless you yourself are vegan and already concede that pretty much anyone reading this on HN should be vegan. But you probably don't grant that, so there's no need to go line-by-line through your idea of the exceptions when we can discuss why you still eat meat without making excuses for other people.
- block_dagger 2y agoI disagree. The agricultural revolution shows clear signs of using land that could otherwise be used by other species, not to mention the destruction of species that were there before we began tilling the soil. Additionally, the rich humans you call out are selling their product to the masses, who happily support their enterprise.