Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Discussions on general biology and biological evolution, genetics, zoology, ecology, botany, etc.

Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Postby wolfhnd on November 29th, 2017, 9:17 pm 

Serpent » Wed Nov 29, 2017 11:45 pm wrote:I think we'll soon find out how well the compromises have turned out. More specifically, how essential flying insects had been to the grains and fruits that feed most of humanity.


I tend to agree but it isn't as if viable solutions are readily available.

A lot of what I have said was simply to point out that the complexity makes ecosystems unpredictable. It is also the case that we do not know what the long-term challenges are.

Societies are complex ecosystems in their own right and I will not assume that anyone is in a position to predict the consequences of proposed solutions.

My personal preference is to engineer the environment instead of taking the almost impossibly complex alternative of minimizing impacts. Again the consequences are unpredictable but this approach is more in harmony with the fact that the environment is not static. Part of that engineering is to artificially reduce population growth for which I'm sure I will be labeled a Nazi. Genocide of course is not the only way to reduce population growth.

The most evident example of genocidal approaches come from environmentalist not people like me. It can be argued that more people have been killed by malaria than any other cause but pesticides have been restricted in Africa in ways that would not be tolerated in the West. Environmental regulations in California have reduced Migrants in the hot center of the state to seek refuge in malls because they can't afford air conditioning. It gets tiresome listening to rich Westerners complain about environmental issues and propose regulations most people can't afford.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Postby Serpent on November 29th, 2017, 10:55 pm 

wolfhnd » November 29th, 2017, 8:17 pm wrote:I tend to agree but it isn't as if viable solutions are readily available.

... anymore. It could still be somewhat helpful to stop all the spraying everywhere, but that can't be done. Whatever might be effective can't be done.

A lot of what I have said was simply to point out that the complexity makes ecosystems unpredictable. It is also the case that we do not know what the long-term challenges are.

Our recent ancestors might have listened to the "tree-huggers" and "alarmists", instead of macing them. They might have dedicated some marginal resources to studying these existential issues. But since nothing can be done until it's been proven beyond a doubt, and there is never any money for respectable enough research and always plenty to fund the counter-propaganda, there is always doubt until the disaster has already come to pass.

My personal preference is to engineer the environment instead of taking the almost impossibly complex alternative of minimizing impacts.

In the Sunday afternoon disaster movies, the usual solution is to nuke it - whatever the threat is - three seconds before it hits Earth.

Part of that engineering is to artificially reduce population growth for which I'm sure I will be labeled a Nazi. Genocide of course is not the only way to reduce population growth.

There was never any need for that. Population growth was driven up artificially by several strong social forces, (including both communists and nazis, btw, who considered reproducing "our kind" as a patriotic duty), the most powerful being organized religion. In order to balance population with available resources, all anyone needed to do was empower women to control their own fertility, and allow non-viable persons to die when they were ready to. Even now, that would be quite helpful, if applied globally.
But, of course, it can't be done.

The most evident example of genocidal approaches come from environmentalist not people like me.

So.... on the one hand, you want to reduce human population while preventing human deaths by natural causes. Overpopulation tends to increase human deaths by violence, though it's less efficient and more costly in terms of social upheaval and infrastructure loss, as well as money spent on weapons (bought at high interest) rather than community health.
It can be argued that more people have been killed by malaria than any other cause but pesticides have been restricted in Africa in ways that would not be tolerated in the West.

Maybe so. There's regulation in the west - sort of. Different in each country. In the US, spraying to protect cash crops is fine, even if harmful to animals and people; spraying to keep city populations free of non-threatening mosquito bites is fine; so is weed-spray to keep roadside maintenance costs down, even if the toxins get into the water and food supply. It's okay, because if the babies develop chronic asthma or allergies early enough, they'll never get health insurance, so they won't be a drain on profits.
That can't be done.
Environmental regulations in California have reduced Migrants in the hot center of the state to seek refuge in malls because they can't afford air conditioning.

It could also be argued that nobody should live in exposed tin huts or trailers. It could be argued that peoples in hot climates had long ago developed building methods, such as earth-sheltered and adobe, planted arbours and and shade trees, or lived in house boats, to stay cool, and that they devised a work-day based on the movements of the sun, rather than the overseer's schedule, and that these time-tested methods might be worth investigating.
It can be argued, but it can't be done.
It gets tiresome listening to rich Westerners complain about environmental issues and propose regulations most people can't afford.

Especially when Westerners put those poor people in the position they're in and created the problems that threaten them. Rather than stop creating and exacerbating problems, we should stop complaining.
That, at least, can be done.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Postby wolfhnd on November 30th, 2017, 12:54 am 

Nearly 1 billion people have been lifted out of absolute poverty in the last 20 years. It could of been better it could have been worse. I'm going with a glass half full.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Postby BioWizard on November 30th, 2017, 6:59 am 

wolfhnd » 29 Nov 2017 11:54 pm wrote:Nearly 1 billion people have been lifted out of absolute poverty in the last 20 years. It could of been better it could have been worse. I'm going with a glass half full.


Lifted out of absolute poverty seems like such a low bar, especially seeing how little resources that takes in relation to the enormous societal inequities in the world.
User avatar
BioWizard
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 12690
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Location: United States
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Postby Serpent on November 30th, 2017, 12:54 pm 

Do we have some back-story as to how all those people were sunk or plunged or shoved into absolute poverty before they needed lifting out?

Or how their relative not-quite-so-dire poverty relates to their stripping the environment of its wildlife, water and plant diversity?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Postby wolfhnd on November 30th, 2017, 6:56 pm 

It is a question of building on the successes and not taking the normal historical path of tearing everything down to create something more perfect.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Postby Serpent on November 30th, 2017, 11:54 pm 

There is legitimate room for hope.
The very big question is of time.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2578
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Maybe extinction of endangered species not so bad?

Postby wolfhnd on December 1st, 2017, 1:29 am 

Serpent » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:54 am wrote:There is legitimate room for hope.
The very big question is of time.


You may have the last word. I would like to explore the topic but this not the time or place.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Previous

Return to Biology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests