It is possible to be opposed to two different things simultaneously that are both bad, despite the fact that one is worse than the other. Never thought I'd have to explain that very simple concept here. Also, while I am concerned about the suffering of animals being hunted, I am likewise concerned about the harm that perpetuating the systemic myth of "hunting is 'good for conservation'" does to actual conservation.
Also, I never claimed that the entirety of conservation is based on the false premise that human intervention by killing wildlife is somehow good ecologically. But it is in fact a part of it.
This thread reminds me of the gymnastics that pundits perform to make it seem like coal mining is akshually good for curbing the effects of climate change.
Correct, capitalist 'economics' is a motivated construct. You can do anything you need to with money, because it isn't real. You can lend it, transfer it, or even borrow it from the future. It is incredibly malleable because it's only constraints are social.
Ecological functions exist with or without us. The demands of a biosphere are concrete and fundamental. You can't lend species diversity, transfer a food web or borrow a soil microboime from the future. If an imbalance exists in nature, no amount of creative accounting will erase it's effects.
A human-made approach towards a human-made problem occurring within a human-made system is not comparable to a human-made approach towards a thermodynamics problem as old as life.
"I'm vegan and murdering animals for sport but pretending it's conservation is actually good!"
deleted by creator
It is possible to be opposed to two different things simultaneously that are both bad, despite the fact that one is worse than the other. Never thought I'd have to explain that very simple concept here. Also, while I am concerned about the suffering of animals being hunted, I am likewise concerned about the harm that perpetuating the systemic myth of "hunting is 'good for conservation'" does to actual conservation.
deleted by creator
Insisting that the entire science of ecological conservation was made up to provide an excuse for sport hunting is a hell of a move
Insisting that the entirety of the science of economics was made up to justify capital accumulation is a hell of a move. Yet here we are.
Also, I never claimed that the entirety of conservation is based on the false premise that human intervention by killing wildlife is somehow good ecologically. But it is in fact a part of it.
This thread reminds me of the gymnastics that pundits perform to make it seem like coal mining is akshually good for curbing the effects of climate change.
Correct, capitalist 'economics' is a motivated construct. You can do anything you need to with money, because it isn't real. You can lend it, transfer it, or even borrow it from the future. It is incredibly malleable because it's only constraints are social.
Ecological functions exist with or without us. The demands of a biosphere are concrete and fundamental. You can't lend species diversity, transfer a food web or borrow a soil microboime from the future. If an imbalance exists in nature, no amount of creative accounting will erase it's effects.
A human-made approach towards a human-made problem occurring within a human-made system is not comparable to a human-made approach towards a thermodynamics problem as old as life.