Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jamie_L · 05-06-2002, 08:30 AM

Ignoring all the space alien discussions...

The importance of environmental conservation is to keep the environment in a state the suits human needs. These needs include not only the ability to sustain human life, but also other things like providing environs that are pleasurable and preserving resources that may be useful in the future even though they don't appear to be now.

Since humans are so damn short-sighted when making group decisions, I think it's a good idea to err on the side of conservation when we aren't certain. If we get too carried away saying "damn the spotted owls", we may shoot ourselves in the foot. Wiping out the spotted owl may not effect us one wit, but if we entrench that attitude, one day we may wipe out something that we really wish we hadn't. Which is not to say we need to protect every last species from going extinct, or preserve every last remaining scrap of wilderness. We just need to avoid the other extreme.

Jamie

Freethinking Ferret · 05-06-2002, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by vixstile:
Some people have made it clear that they would prefer the partial, if not total, annihilation of humanity, in favor of non-human life.

Here's the problem: nobody's making this argument here, at least that I have seen. The people who are pro-conservation are not anti-human; in fact, like myself and Jamie, acknowledge that conservation is something that can help humanity.

vixstile · 05-06-2002, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Freethinking Ferret:


Here's the problem: nobody's making this argument here, at least that I have seen. The people who are pro-conservation are not anti-human; in fact, like myself and Jamie, acknowledge that conservation is something that can help humanity.

juiblex had this to say:

Quote:

Count me among those who wouldnt mind the partial destruction of mankind. in fact, just get rid of humanity altogether, what good have we accomplished?
6 or so billion and rising by the minute will, in a short amount of time be unsustainable. Humans have multiplied to a parasitic level, surviving for themselves and not giving a shit for anything else they might encounter. vixstile's responses have more that extended that idea.

Im not trying to argue with anyone, im just trying to start a little discussion.

So let me restate a proposition from my initial post:Why not(given the right knowledge and technology)alter, redesign and/or exploit non-human environments to best suit the needs of humanity?

Note: please don't start talking about practical implications of effecting the environment, and how it will bring about dooms day fore humanity. Im using a hypothetical situation, were, humans would have enough knowledge of environmental manipulation to be relatively certain that the changes to the environment will have no adverse effects for HUMANS. Im talking about the ethical implications, not the practical implications

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]

Jamie_L · 05-06-2002, 12:20 PM

Obviously, if we had perfect knowledge, I'd have no problem altering the environment to perfectly fit human needs. This would, presumeably, include keeping wild areas for recreation and research, keeping around all the species we might need for medical purposes, etc.

The problem comes in practically implementing something like this with real-world imperfect knowledge, and a lack of agreement among parties as to what constitutes "fitting human needs".

I see conservation as a cautious, practical means to accomplish the stated goal of adapting the environment to our needs and desires.

Jamie

vixstile · 05-06-2002, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
Obviously, if we had perfect knowledge, I'd have no problem altering the environment to perfectly fit human needs. This would, presumeably, include keeping wild areas for recreation and research, keeping around all the species we might need for medical purposes, etc.

The problem comes in practically implementing something like this with real-world imperfect knowledge, and a lack of agreement among parties as to what constitutes "fitting human needs".

I see conservation as a cautious, practical means to accomplish the stated goal of adapting the environment to our needs and desires.

Jamie

That all sounds reasonable to me

vixstile · 05-07-2002, 08:46 AM

To those who think man should just drop off the face of the earth, let me make the following point......

If all earths ecosystems were to exist free of human influence, they would eventually experience mass extinction's (meteors, ice-ages), but most likely, some kind of life would survive and continue to thrive. All minor extinction's aside; there will be the inevitable total extinction of all life on earth. Im talking of course, about the eventual death of our sun. When our sun dies, there will no longer be any possibility of life on earth

Currently humans are the only species that has any prospect of surviving the death of our sun. We are the only species that can possibly evolve beyond dependency of earth. The chances of any non-human species surviving the death of our sun is completely dependent on humans. I think that would be a nice accomplishment for our species.

Humans are also currently the only species that has the ability to prevent many minor extinction's. If a large meteor comes our way, we can just blow it up!. If a new ice-age comes along, we can just start driving less fuel efficient cars, crating a green-house effect

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]

Jamie_L · 05-07-2002, 09:37 AM

What is nature? It's a state of flux, where the ecosystem evolves and changes due to the effects of the living things within it, with each species interacting with other species and the ecosystem as a whole. Any give sate of that ecosystem is merely the result of countless states that preceeded it - including the extinction of many species.

Some species can hasten their own extinction by being to good at some task - so good that the expand too fast, putting a strain on their envorinment. Many others species have been driven to extinction by competing species, or by even by the effects on the environment caused by some species not in direct competition. Humans aren't unique when it comes to damaging or altering our environment and causing other species to go extinct. We just happen to be the first species doing it on a rapid, global scale with tools. That's just as much "nature" as anything else.

Jamie

DRFseven · 05-07-2002, 11:47 AM

Quote:

tronvillain: "Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor? Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys. Nature started the fight for survival and now she wants to quit because she's losing? Well, I say 'Hard cheese!'"
-Mr. Burns, the Simpsons, 4F17.

<cackle> I'm sending that to my daughter!

05-07-2002, 08:46 AM	#16
vixstile Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California Posts: 2,029	To those who think man should just drop off the face of the earth, let me make the following point...... If all earths ecosystems were to exist free of human influence, they would eventually experience mass extinction's (meteors, ice-ages), but most likely, some kind of life would survive and continue to thrive. All minor extinction's aside; there will be the inevitable total extinction of all life on earth. Im talking of course, about the eventual death of our sun. When our sun dies, there will no longer be any possibility of life on earth Currently humans are the only species that has any prospect of surviving the death of our sun. We are the only species that can possibly evolve beyond dependency of earth. The chances of any non-human species surviving the death of our sun is completely dependent on humans. I think that would be a nice accomplishment for our species. Humans are also currently the only species that has the ability to prevent many minor extinction's. If a large meteor comes our way, we can just blow it up!. If a new ice-age comes along, we can just start driving less fuel efficient cars, crating a green-house effect [ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2002, 08:30 AM	#11
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Ignoring all the space alien discussions... The importance of environmental conservation is to keep the environment in a state the suits human needs. These needs include not only the ability to sustain human life, but also other things like providing environs that are pleasurable and preserving resources that may be useful in the future even though they don't appear to be now. Since humans are so damn short-sighted when making group decisions, I think it's a good idea to err on the side of conservation when we aren't certain. If we get too carried away saying "damn the spotted owls", we may shoot ourselves in the foot. Wiping out the spotted owl may not effect us one wit, but if we entrench that attitude, one day we may wipe out something that we really wish we hadn't. Which is not to say we need to protect every last species from going extinct, or preserve every last remaining scrap of wilderness. We just need to avoid the other extreme. Jamie

05-06-2002, 12:20 PM	#14
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Obviously, if we had perfect knowledge, I'd have no problem altering the environment to perfectly fit human needs. This would, presumeably, include keeping wild areas for recreation and research, keeping around all the species we might need for medical purposes, etc. The problem comes in practically implementing something like this with real-world imperfect knowledge, and a lack of agreement among parties as to what constitutes "fitting human needs". I see conservation as a cautious, practical means to accomplish the stated goal of adapting the environment to our needs and desires. Jamie

05-07-2002, 09:37 AM	#17
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	What is nature? It's a state of flux, where the ecosystem evolves and changes due to the effects of the living things within it, with each species interacting with other species and the ecosystem as a whole. Any give sate of that ecosystem is merely the result of countless states that preceeded it - including the extinction of many species. Some species can hasten their own extinction by being to good at some task - so good that the expand too fast, putting a strain on their envorinment. Many others species have been driven to extinction by competing species, or by even by the effects on the environment caused by some species not in direct competition. Humans aren't unique when it comes to damaging or altering our environment and causing other species to go extinct. We just happen to be the first species doing it on a rapid, global scale with tools. That's just as much "nature" as anything else. Jamie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.