4 ms·
I worry this view is both pedantic and harmful. Of course over geologic scales extinctions are quite normal, and nothing is static. That doesn't mean ecosyste
by sriacha 2y ago
I worry this view is both pedantic and harmful.
Of course over geologic scales extinctions are quite normal, and nothing is static.
That doesn't mean ecosystems aren't normally resilient to perturbations on a smaller timescales: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_stability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_stability
>Populations will get wiped out, species will disappear.
There is plenty of evidence that extinction rates are extremely high right now, and that humans are culpable. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12816 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12816
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- timeon 2y ago> I worry this view is both pedantic and harmful. Yes it seems like excuse for enlightened apathy.
- spiderfarmer 2y agoWhy? It doesn't retract from the fact that biodiversity is important. Biodiversity is important because nature is brutal. And it's clear to anyone who is willing to listen that humans are culpable. But that doesn't mean nature will return to an equilibrium when humans disappear.
- ggpsv 2y agoIs it really brutal? Can you single out "nature" and its characteristics? Brutal sounds like a value judgement, one that I suspect explains nothing about the fact. Can we accept that it just is, and we're part of that, for all our vices and virtues?
- spiderfarmer 2y agoEmbrace nature and go live in the jungle without clothes, tools, fire, water, food, medicine. Calling it brutal after such an experience wouldn’t be dismissed as a value judgement.