U.S. wildlife officials are embracing a contentious plan to deploy trained shooters into dense West Coast forests to kill almost a half-million barred owls in coming decades
We don't live in nature. We literally live in a human society.
Human society exists entirely within nature. There's not some diving line where this place over here is natural and this place over there is unnatural. We decide what rights we have to what, because we decided that rights should exist.
And what happens when this intervention causes new unforeseen consequences? How many disruptions until we leave well enough alone?
There is no leaving well enough alone, unless you are content to watch it decline into deserts and polluted wastelands. Every action has consequences, and since we have already acted, the state of nature is the consequence of our action whether or not we continue to intervene.
I think this is a good way of putting it, imo your final sentence is really strong and I wonder if others would be more receptive if you started with it instead of ended with it. Still really appreciate your comment I might swipe it if that's alright with you.
I appreciate the feedback, thanks, and feel welcome to anything I've written if you can find anything good in my ramblings. I don't believe in intellectual property.
Very colonizer-brained. We certainly can delineate ourselves to a certain degree. At what scope have we tried leaving well enough alone for nature to run its course? Human "wisdom" has caused untold damage, what makes you so certain that same wisdom is what's best?
And this isn't a call for humanity to stop progressing or anything(though maybe....) just that well intentioned conservation seems short sighted and self serving. I'm not convinced our intervention is what will halt the decay.
I love the logic there. Allowing an entire species to go extinct due to the invasion of another species, potentially fucking up the local ecosystem? Perfectly fine, let nature run its course. Moving a few rocks, having negligible impact on the environment around them? Horrible, nature will never recover from this.
Yes that's exactly right. Not all invasive species are a result of human fuckery (speaking outside of the scope of this particular article) and is literally natural. Extinction is natural. Ecosystem upheaval is natural. Why is your human ego and feelings for one species important here?
And you don't even understand the irony. Sure on a macro level rock stacking is likely inconsequential most times, but you have no consideration to the micro ecosystems you're upheaving because they're out of sight. How many bacteria have you caused to go extinct? Lmao I don't even care that badly about rock stacking I just thought it was a silly insult.
ok, to clarify arent all species invasive, as they need to compete in new environments as other environment change (cough or humans destroy their habitat by burning black ground juice cough) and become unsuitable?
to me central planning and scientific engagement is key to marxism, besides bourgeois interests being the thing that will find a way to mess this up, i can't think of other major issues... help me out here if ya can comrade? i wouldn't mind some good crit.
I suppose if you magnify it so far, but that's seems semantic ultimately.
Certainly a great deal of damage is the excess and inefficiency of global capitalism. With the tenants of central planning we wouldn't need to exploit nearly as much land and resources if we consumed only as much as necessary. But if growth is an endless goal even under communism, why worry about conserving anything now? At some point growth has to be checked, or nature has to be sacrificed.
There's also an argument to be made of over correcting or too much deliberation. If we're always focused on conserving an ecosystem at a chosen level, won't it ultimately stagnate? At what point does the Earth just become a global zoo? When do we pull back and allow systems to change like they always have?
Hm what do you mean? I think I missed something, I read it as a general expression (the universal as marx & aristotle puts it) rather than the specific...
Was there another comment or thread I missed? I'm confused bcuz I'm not sure which part is 'stupid'
As well humans aren't special in the fact that there are apparent macro-changes to our environment. I heard a notable marxist biologist, Richard C. Lewton state that beavers have made more of am impact on the geography and environmental conditions of north america than humans. It was a bit shocking to hear that, but it made sense to me after I thought about it.
I think partially the difference in my understanding and the other commentator's is I don't place the effect of humans to be meaningful in any special way as compared to other mechanisms of changing the environment and climate.
That is, besides our relation to climate change as being a consequence of human activity at a certain stage of development (I mean the base and superstructure here) it need not and indeed is less effective to add qualitative distinctions like "humans are worse" and "we have a responsibility".
Responsibility, yes, and humans are adapting to climate change. Instead of direct-human activity there could have hypothetically been a solar flare from our sun of a particular kind, or gamma ray burst from a nearby dying star which causes a large volcanic erruption such as the kind during the precambian extinction (wiki link) and wiped out human technological development in say the 1800s before major global industrialization began...
We'd still have to deal with it, the why matters insofar as it relates to addressing the problem.
Maybe a few dozen for me? I think there were some novel mutations in my petri dish in my microbiology lab. I think because I accidentally mixed two different cultures and didn't get a new q-tip. My culture looked way different than my benchmates.
I didn't tell the TAs and it was graded on participation (we were learning how to swab petri dishes).
If you consider strains of as bacteria then yeah I am unfortunately guilty in the name of science... But I'm no graverobber like the relatively (in terms of the profession of healing, as physician was the prior term of art) new 'medical doctor' profession.
Also I do it in the pursuit of knowledge (still not ok) which is better than profit (super not ok, full of contradictions)
The idea that untouched nature progresses toward some idealized equilibrium isn't true, unfortunately. Conservation takes work. It has always taken work. It took work even when this land was solely occupied by indigenous people. We're already in the game and just withdrawing isn't an option.
Life on Earth existed for hundreds of millions of years before human industrialisation, why are we so necessary to it's continuation? Why isn't withdrawing to a certain extent an option? Sounds like you're arguing for the contradiction of infinite growth like a good capitalist.
Hmm, comrade I think the other commentor is a bit rude, and your 'name-calling' or rather insinuations by using similies is also a bit uncalled for.
By similie I am referring to, the use of "...infinite growth like a good capitalist"
It doesn't really seem fair to me to levy a claim like that or make that inference since nothing the other commentor said really–to me at least–indicates them advocating for infinite growth.
And what happens when this intervention causes new unforeseen consequences? How many disruptions until we leave well enough alone?
We don't live in nature. We literally live in a human society. Rights do apply to us within our own realm lmao.
Edit: You probably stack rocks.
Human society exists entirely within nature. There's not some diving line where this place over here is natural and this place over there is unnatural. We decide what rights we have to what, because we decided that rights should exist.
There is no leaving well enough alone, unless you are content to watch it decline into deserts and polluted wastelands. Every action has consequences, and since we have already acted, the state of nature is the consequence of our action whether or not we continue to intervene.
I think this is a good way of putting it, imo your final sentence is really strong and I wonder if others would be more receptive if you started with it instead of ended with it. Still really appreciate your comment I might swipe it if that's alright with you.
I appreciate the feedback, thanks, and feel welcome to anything I've written if you can find anything good in my ramblings. I don't believe in intellectual property.
Ye kkkopyright is crudd. I ask as a force if habit, like 80℅ of the time i take without even knowing until I later think over my conversation 😂😭
Very colonizer-brained. We certainly can delineate ourselves to a certain degree. At what scope have we tried leaving well enough alone for nature to run its course? Human "wisdom" has caused untold damage, what makes you so certain that same wisdom is what's best?
And this isn't a call for humanity to stop progressing or anything(though maybe....) just that well intentioned conservation seems short sighted and self serving. I'm not convinced our intervention is what will halt the decay.
colonizer brain is when uh conserving native species
your takes are getting even more fucking stupid
Stacking rocks is cool and fun, actually.
I love the logic there. Allowing an entire species to go extinct due to the invasion of another species, potentially fucking up the local ecosystem? Perfectly fine, let nature run its course. Moving a few rocks, having negligible impact on the environment around them? Horrible, nature will never recover from this.
This is the real-life example of the trolly problem isn't it?
Yes that's exactly right. Not all invasive species are a result of human fuckery (speaking outside of the scope of this particular article) and is literally natural. Extinction is natural. Ecosystem upheaval is natural. Why is your human ego and feelings for one species important here?
And you don't even understand the irony. Sure on a macro level rock stacking is likely inconsequential most times, but you have no consideration to the micro ecosystems you're upheaving because they're out of sight. How many bacteria have you caused to go extinct? Lmao I don't even care that badly about rock stacking I just thought it was a silly insult.
ok, to clarify arent all species invasive, as they need to compete in new environments as other environment change (cough or humans destroy their habitat by burning black ground juice cough) and become unsuitable?
to me central planning and scientific engagement is key to marxism, besides bourgeois interests being the thing that will find a way to mess this up, i can't think of other major issues... help me out here if ya can comrade? i wouldn't mind some good crit.
I suppose if you magnify it so far, but that's seems semantic ultimately.
Certainly a great deal of damage is the excess and inefficiency of global capitalism. With the tenants of central planning we wouldn't need to exploit nearly as much land and resources if we consumed only as much as necessary. But if growth is an endless goal even under communism, why worry about conserving anything now? At some point growth has to be checked, or nature has to be sacrificed.
There's also an argument to be made of over correcting or too much deliberation. If we're always focused on conserving an ecosystem at a chosen level, won't it ultimately stagnate? At what point does the Earth just become a global zoo? When do we pull back and allow systems to change like they always have?
yeah i dont really know... was thinking outlou. appreciate your comments cde!
don't appreciate her comments, they're stupid as fuck
Hm what do you mean? I think I missed something, I read it as a general expression (the universal as marx & aristotle puts it) rather than the specific...
Was there another comment or thread I missed? I'm confused bcuz I'm not sure which part is 'stupid'
girl what in gods fucking name are you talking about we've been cultivating the land around us since we were fucking nomads
As well humans aren't special in the fact that there are apparent macro-changes to our environment. I heard a notable marxist biologist, Richard C. Lewton state that beavers have made more of am impact on the geography and environmental conditions of north america than humans. It was a bit shocking to hear that, but it made sense to me after I thought about it.
I think partially the difference in my understanding and the other commentator's is I don't place the effect of humans to be meaningful in any special way as compared to other mechanisms of changing the environment and climate.
That is, besides our relation to climate change as being a consequence of human activity at a certain stage of development (I mean the base and superstructure here) it need not and indeed is less effective to add qualitative distinctions like "humans are worse" and "we have a responsibility".
Responsibility, yes, and humans are adapting to climate change. Instead of direct-human activity there could have hypothetically been a solar flare from our sun of a particular kind, or gamma ray burst from a nearby dying star which causes a large volcanic erruption such as the kind during the precambian extinction (wiki link) and wiped out human technological development in say the 1800s before major global industrialization began...
We'd still have to deal with it, the why matters insofar as it relates to addressing the problem.
Literally none.
Maybe a few dozen for me? I think there were some novel mutations in my petri dish in my microbiology lab. I think because I accidentally mixed two different cultures and didn't get a new q-tip. My culture looked way different than my benchmates.
I didn't tell the TAs and it was graded on participation (we were learning how to swab petri dishes).
If you consider strains of as bacteria then yeah I am unfortunately guilty in the name of science... But I'm no graverobber like the relatively (in terms of the profession of healing, as physician was the prior term of art) new 'medical doctor' profession.
Also I do it in the pursuit of knowledge (still not ok) which is better than profit (super not ok, full of contradictions)
For some dam stuff stacking rocks from the locality is like a good method to stymie disaster... Like a flood I think.
The idea that untouched nature progresses toward some idealized equilibrium isn't true, unfortunately. Conservation takes work. It has always taken work. It took work even when this land was solely occupied by indigenous people. We're already in the game and just withdrawing isn't an option.
Life on Earth existed for hundreds of millions of years before human industrialisation, why are we so necessary to it's continuation? Why isn't withdrawing to a certain extent an option? Sounds like you're arguing for the contradiction of infinite growth like a good capitalist.
I am not even going to respond other than to say your arguments are so dumb, like for real.
seriously, just shut up.
Thank you, this was helpfully thought-terminating.
like your shit arguments had any thoughts to begin with
Hmm, comrade I think the other commentor is a bit rude, and your 'name-calling' or rather insinuations by using similies is also a bit uncalled for.
By similie I am referring to, the use of "...infinite growth like a good capitalist"
It doesn't really seem fair to me to levy a claim like that or make that inference since nothing the other commentor said really–to me at least–indicates them advocating for infinite growth.