7 ms·

Tell that to the desert-dwelling species that rely on that habitat for survival. Deserts aren't empty wastelands that are valueless without human development.

by stvltvs 24d ago

mc32 24d ago
It’s not taking back historical desserts but rather reclaiming more recent desertification or simply stopping the advance of desertification.
- blooalien 24d ago
  > It’s not taking back historical desserts but rather reclaiming more recent desertification or simply stopping the advance of desertification. Any successes in that specific regard are probably an overall good thing really. Fingers crossed for the folks doin' such things...
dd8601fn 24d ago
Maybe I saw too many Disney movies as a kid, but it took me a very long time to consider, “There’s nothing inherently good or right about what would have happened in the absence of people.” There’s nothing kind, nurturing, decent, or fair about natures course. It’s a thing without direction, not a “one true course of events” that we interrupted. It makes those kinds of situations much harder to evaluate than the simple worldview, but I think it’s more honest. And yeah, the hazard is in thinking the opposite is true. Lord knows we’ve done some objectively dumb shit, too. Being such a wildly powerful species is a burden.
- bko 23d ago
  One thing I found is that the people that most believe there is some kind of natural order without humans is preferable or more "natural" than the nature we make suited to humanity, is that these people are almost always atheist or agnostic. Of course you can not believe this and be atheist. But the deep sense of indifference to humanity is much more prelavent with godless people.
  - paulryanrogers 23d ago
    Humanity is part of nature. And undeniably a part with outsized impact on the remainder of nature. Seeing humans as just a part makes a lot of folks more humble and desire balance. A more extreme view on the other side is that people should "go forth and multiply", consequences be damned. Which reads as naive as middle schoolers who think the bacteria in their enclosed experiment will grow and florish forever.
    - bko 23d ago
      > A more extreme view on the other side is that people should "go forth and multiply", consequences be damned. I think the best part of nature are human beings. I don't think it's a naive middle schooler idea. It's in fact the most lindy, biologically rooted idea that exists. Ignore it at your own peril (or the peril of your genes).
      - paulryanrogers 23d ago
        > I think the best part of nature are human beings. I don't think it's a naive middle schooler idea. It's in fact the most lindy, biologically rooted idea that exists Every sentient species probably feels the same about their kind. That doesn't make it objectively true. > Ignore it at your own peril (or the peril of your genes). Genes of every species that ever lived have gone--or soon enough will go--extinct. We're just the lucky ones who've made it this far. Life is worth preserving (IMO), and I've passed on my own personal set of genes a few times. I just don't think burning the world at the expense of everything else is worthwhile or sustainable. Said another way, I'd be fine with humanity going extinct if it meant nature could go on making more interesting things. In fact, I think humanity is bound to be replaced by something else eventually. After all, there's no magical sky daddy who made us in some divine image or who is determined to preserve us exactly like this forever.

Tell that to the desert-dwelling species that rely on that habitat for survival. Deserts aren't empty wastelands that are valueless without human development.

by stvltvs 24d ago

Tell that to the desert-dwelling species that rely on that habitat for survival. Deserts aren't empty wastelands that are valueless without human development.

mc32 24d ago

It’s not taking back historical desserts but rather reclaiming more recent desertification or simply stopping the advance of desertification.

blooalien 24d ago
> It’s not taking back historical desserts but rather reclaiming more recent desertification or simply stopping the advance of desertification. Any successes in that specific regard are probably an overall good thing really. Fingers crossed for the folks doin' such things...

dd8601fn 24d ago

Maybe I saw too many Disney movies as a kid, but it took me a very long time to consider, “There’s nothing inherently good or right about what would have happened in the absence of people.” There’s nothing kind, nurturing, decent, or fair about natures course. It’s a thing without direction, not a “one true course of events” that we interrupted. It makes those kinds of situations much harder to evaluate than the simple worldview, but I think it’s more honest. And yeah, the hazard is in thinking the opposite is true. Lord knows we’ve done some objectively dumb shit, too. Being such a wildly powerful species is a burden.

bko 23d ago
One thing I found is that the people that most believe there is some kind of natural order without humans is preferable or more "natural" than the nature we make suited to humanity, is that these people are almost always atheist or agnostic. Of course you can not believe this and be atheist. But the deep sense of indifference to humanity is much more prelavent with godless people.
- paulryanrogers 23d ago
  Humanity is part of nature. And undeniably a part with outsized impact on the remainder of nature. Seeing humans as just a part makes a lot of folks more humble and desire balance. A more extreme view on the other side is that people should "go forth and multiply", consequences be damned. Which reads as naive as middle schoolers who think the bacteria in their enclosed experiment will grow and florish forever.
  - bko 23d ago
    > A more extreme view on the other side is that people should "go forth and multiply", consequences be damned. I think the best part of nature are human beings. I don't think it's a naive middle schooler idea. It's in fact the most lindy, biologically rooted idea that exists. Ignore it at your own peril (or the peril of your genes).
    - paulryanrogers 23d ago
      > I think the best part of nature are human beings. I don't think it's a naive middle schooler idea. It's in fact the most lindy, biologically rooted idea that exists Every sentient species probably feels the same about their kind. That doesn't make it objectively true. > Ignore it at your own peril (or the peril of your genes). Genes of every species that ever lived have gone--or soon enough will go--extinct. We're just the lucky ones who've made it this far. Life is worth preserving (IMO), and I've passed on my own personal set of genes a few times. I just don't think burning the world at the expense of everything else is worthwhile or sustainable. Said another way, I'd be fine with humanity going extinct if it meant nature could go on making more interesting things. In fact, I think humanity is bound to be replaced by something else eventually. After all, there's no magical sky daddy who made us in some divine image or who is determined to preserve us exactly like this forever.