4 ms·
Indeed I would argue that this is the worst possible "conservation", since it eliminates the only thing that values conservation, human brains.
by furyofantares 2y ago
Indeed 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...
- andrewflnr 2y agoOk fine, unique except for maybe that one time.
- darth_avocado 2y agoHumans as a species don’t value conservation. Individual humans. The total removal of human beings is still the best form of conservation.
- chr1 2y agoConservation of what? Exact state of the ecosystem today? That goes until the next comet hits the Earth. And eventually all the life dies out when Earth core gets colder and volcanism ends. But with humans there is a chance to save and spread the life in general by moving to other planets, and using other yet unknown technologies.
- darth_avocado 2y agoYes the remaining ecosystem we have left today. Earth core will colder in millions of years. The rate at which we’re making life in general except for a few strains that are useful for human consumption, will not last that long. And yes a comet could hit the earth any time and wipe out all life, but that also means it could happen before you moved to other planets by using unknown technologies. A comet could wipe out all humans as well, but we don’t use that as an excuse to start wiping out other humans do we? Then why don’t those rules apply to the rest of the life we share this planet with?
- chr1 2y agoWhen plane is crashing, one wouldn't suggest the pilot to jump off to make the plane lighter. Same here, if life has any chance at all to survive long term, that chance is through humans. Sadly we are not all powerful and some species will go extinct before being restored, but if humans are "removed" these species living a few more years on a doomed planet is not any better. Moreover, saying that ultimate goal of nature conservation is removal of humans is simply counterproductive, it makes people ignore the nature conservation efforts as suicidal mental illness, while we are mindlessly wasting priceless library of useful genes and proteins that took billion years to develop.