Swamps are entirely different from deserts. Swamps aren't welcoming to humans, deserts aren't welcoming to life in general. In addition a huge portion of today's deserts did not exist in recent prehistory. They also act as the opposite of a carbon sink. There is really no good reason to preserve a desert, other than "I want the fennec foxes and sidewinders to live"
If this was an example of restoring an ecosystem to the way it was before humans affected it I think that is quite an incredible feat. Altering what few natural ecosystems are left on Earth seems like a bad idea to me though.
It's impossible to say because nature is an infinitely dimensional system, but going by what scientists know:
pros: greenification has massive benefits for biodiversity, biomass, and carbon reduction via tree cover
cons: fennec foxes may go extinct
obviously it will probably have some unpredictable effects on the environment, but that goes for everything. The point is that the benefits are absolutely massive, and also the system is self-regulating (it's very hard to green the desert, it's not like introducing an invasive species)
Both biodiversity and biomass are severely reduced in deserts. Yeah there are some cute fennec foxes and stuff that are well-adapted to a desert. Other than that their effect is entirely negative. Even their very existence threatens fertile lands into becoming desert as well.
Thats a colonial mindset though. Why must people change the environment to fit a specific way of life instead of adapting to their environment themselves and preserving the worlds precious ecosystems.
The CCP is RUINING the lifeless hellscape of the Gobi Desert
PRESERVE the lifeless blistering hot desert
deleted by creator
Same with swamps.
Just because it’s not welcoming for humans doesn’t mean it’s not a vital part of the ecosystem.
Swamps are entirely different from deserts. Swamps aren't welcoming to humans, deserts aren't welcoming to life in general. In addition a huge portion of today's deserts did not exist in recent prehistory. They also act as the opposite of a carbon sink. There is really no good reason to preserve a desert, other than "I want the fennec foxes and sidewinders to live"
If this was an example of restoring an ecosystem to the way it was before humans affected it I think that is quite an incredible feat. Altering what few natural ecosystems are left on Earth seems like a bad idea to me though.
Thanks for the informative reply.
Is there any benefit to having some desert areas or would the world (minus fennec foxes) be better off if all of the desert became a different biome?
It's impossible to say because nature is an infinitely dimensional system, but going by what scientists know:
pros: greenification has massive benefits for biodiversity, biomass, and carbon reduction via tree cover
cons: fennec foxes may go extinct
obviously it will probably have some unpredictable effects on the environment, but that goes for everything. The point is that the benefits are absolutely massive, and also the system is self-regulating (it's very hard to green the desert, it's not like introducing an invasive species)
I can't tell if you're doing a bit or not but no
Both biodiversity and biomass are severely reduced in deserts. Yeah there are some cute fennec foxes and stuff that are well-adapted to a desert. Other than that their effect is entirely negative. Even their very existence threatens fertile lands into becoming desert as well.
deleted by creator
Thats a colonial mindset though. Why must people change the environment to fit a specific way of life instead of adapting to their environment themselves and preserving the worlds precious ecosystems.
because creating more forested carbon sinks helps offset the much more massive anthropogenic climate change?
Should we leave all the plastic in the ocean because some crabs and birds have adapted to it by using it to build nests?
Death By Sand 2020