5 ms·
Arguably, the only good conservation involves removing all humans forever. Given how that’s not a workable or good idea (from a self-preservation perspective) e
by master_crab 2y ago
Arguably, the only good conservation involves removing all humans forever. Given how that’s not a workable or good idea (from a self-preservation perspective) everything else is open to interpretation.
(Not an argument for maximalist interpretations)
- graemep 2y agoThat also implies there is no loss from removing everything uniquely human from the world. More fundamentally, what is the goal? What do we want to maximise?
- theoreticalmal 2y agoMaximize crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.
- weard_beard 2y agoBeauty.
- nkrisc 2y agoFamously subjective.
- weard_beard 2y agoIts the nearest neighbor to everyone's best interest and most interpretations are preservationist.
- card_zero 2y agoWell, is the world more beautiful with mammoths, or without? They do have lovely strawberry blonde hair.
- dullcrisp 2y agoPaper clips
- weard_beard 2y agoNo, that's education: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U#t=7m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U#t=7m40s
- theoreticalmal 2y agoFantastic answer, and the only correct one I see https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html
- dleeftink 2y agoMinimise entropy, maximise knowledge, kinship, time.
- xhkkffbf 2y agoWhy are the humans the only bad species to be eliminated? Certainly there must be a few others that get in the way of our earthly Eden? Maybe mosquitoes? Maybe boa constrictors? Deer have a way of stripping a plot of land of trees and vegetation. Need I go on?
- furyofantares 2y agoIndeed I would argue that this is the worst possible "conservation", since it eliminates the only thing that values conservation, human brains.
- MillironX 2y agoExactly. "Conservation" is the wise use of resources, while "preservation" is the complete rewilding of those resources.
- aziaziazi 2y agoThis looks like old anthropocentric philosophy. Add the concept of a divine Creator that gives human all of his wise willpower and you’ll have most chances to be published and applause in the XVIII century.
- bspammer 2y agoI think a lot of environmentalists do have a very anthropocentric view though - humans are viewed as a uniquely corrupting, malevolent force that's a blight on the natural balance of the world. But every other species would do the same, if they could. Our worst instincts are the ones that we share with all other life on this planet - to expand at the expense of everything else. To be selfish, and grow without limit. Ironically one of the things that's unique to humans is our ability to feel guilty about our impact on the environment.
- andrewflnr 2y agoHumans are uniquely powerful in the history of life, which is almost functionally indistinguishable from "uniquely corrupting" in this context. I don't know if that's exactly a defense, but it's at least an understandable mistake.
- matxip 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event#Hypotheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event#Hypothes...
- swat535 2y agoWouldn't it also be fair to point out that humans are part of the ecosystem, not outside of it? From a purely ecological standpoint, removing us would be just as disruptive as removing any other dominant species. Like any apex predator, or really, any lifeforms, we're acting in ways that prioritize our own survival and propagation. Whether that's through agriculture, technology, or resource extraction, it's arguably just a continuation of what evolution has selected for in every species: survival, reproduction, expansion. What I mean is that it's easy to moralize human impact as uniquely destructive, but in a systems view, isn’t this just another emergent behavior of a successful species? I wonder if the real issue is less about "humans vs nature" and more about how we can integrate long term thinking into a system that historically rewards short term gains. I suppose evolution will have the last say, as it always does.