You call it the destruction of their habitat, I call it the creation of our habitat. Animals in the wild compete for territory all the time. We’re winning.
How do dead coral reefs and plankton lead to more habitat for us? [They don’t.]
By the way, here is some more accurate info on honeybees for the OP’s perusal. The comment about lemmings isn’t really accurate either, at least to my understanding. I don’t know if there are other errors in that post. I know that genetically altered grains have helped improve nutrition for tons of people, but that doesn’t speak to the seedless or pesticide issues directly.
Yeah, and if we keep if up we’ll annihilate our entire support system and win a spot on the extinct species list. That’ll show all those faggy plants and animals how KICKASS we are! FUCK YEAH!
HOO! HOO! HOO! HOO! AR-SE-NI-O! AR-SE-NI-O!
Yeah! Now we’re fucking talking!
First prize: last species standing? No thanks.
Ironically, AClockworkMelon is actually approaching this with far more rationality than all the rest fo you in this entire thread put together.
:dubious: Do explain. How does severe habitat destruction for many species crucial to the ecosystem count as a “win” for humanity?
Sure, it may seem like a win temporarily, as we expand to occupy and pollute more and more of the globe. We’re out-competing our rivals, right?
Likewise, it temporarily seems like a win for a predator species when they become so successful at hunting and reproducing that they effectively wipe out the prey species on which they depend for food. But then what does the “winning” species have? A bunch of hungry predators and nothing to eat. Such situations don’t typically end well for the “winning” species.
Too often environmentalist arguments get dismissed as being irrational crying about Mother Nature and ignoring human wants. But the fact is everyone in this thread is just as selfishly motivated as anyone else. They just either want a) the best for humans in the long term, which requires making concessions in the short term, and/or b) the psychology pleasure resulting from “helping” an anthropomorphized piece of Nature.
While b stills leaves room for anti-human sentiment, I would say a is the real motivation far more often. And besides, what basis do you have for saying that being anti-human is irrational at all? I see nothing logically inconsistent with consciously rejecting our survival and reproductive desires acquired from evolution.
No, he isn’t. And I’m not sure he wasn’t joking.
Let me reply by saying the histrionics are ridiculous. HUmanity is not at stake. The environment is not at stake: one form fo the current environment in some limited areas of the globe is at stake. This does not call for panic and proposals for a worldwide tyranny to eliminate human reproduction as much as possible.
Frankly, most of you are not even worth debating.
So you are not saying that the approach of “fuck the rest of the planet, humans rule” is more rational, but (less interestingly) that the basic idea of this thread is ok, just that the problems are grossly overexaggerated?
Where are the histrionics?
Where are the proposals for worldwide tyranny?
To be completely honest, it sounds like you’re arguing from ignorance. Humanity is doing a lot to the environment that most people don’t even know about. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that I linked to upthread is not something that could happen. It’s something that is objectively, demonstrably, inarguably already happening. Do you know exactly how important the Gulf of Mexico is to the environment? No. I doubt anyone else does either, but we know it’s important. Do you know exactly what producing over 5 Quadrillion plastic nurdles per year is doing to the environment? No. I doubt anyone else does either, but we know it’s not good. Humanity is not at stake tomorrow, but you’re deluded if you think we can keep going on the same track we’re on forever. And precisely because of people like you who refuse to acknowledge a problem, it might be too late when we finally decide to take action. Hell, it might already be too late. There are too many variables, and we’re not playing anywhere near the safe side.
Edit: And for the record, overpopulation is more of a symptom, or an aspect, rather than the problem itself. The problems are destruction of habitat, pollution, etc. I’m sure if we collectively decided to start living in harmony with nature, the world could hold more people. We’d just have to give up flying from NYC to LA and back the same day for a business meeting, driving H2s, eating at McDonald’s, etc.
It’s certainly very unlikely that our current and projected environmental impacts would result in actually wiping out humanity as a species. And it’s certainly almost totally impossible that anything humans do at least in the next few centuries could actually wipe out the entire biosphere.
However, I don’t quite share your gay insouciance about the unimportance of any lesser consequences. You may feel that as long as we’re not actually at risk of driving our own species and/or all other species to literal extinction, there’s nothing to panic about, but that strikes me as setting the bar for concern a trifle on the high side.
That’s not really an effective way to persuade people engaged in a debate, though. Any idiot can wander into a debate thread and say he knows better, but if he actually wants other posters to believe him, he needs to come up with some rational arguments.
It would be perfectly fine to destroy natural habitats to create more habitat for us. Problem is we depend on those habitats. Forests soak up C02, coral reefs protect coastlines, we eat fish from the oceans and so on. Unfortunately we don’t put a price on the services our ecosystem provides for free.
Exaxctly. Destroying or even “just” damaging functional ecosystems deprives us of their products and processes, which collectively feed, clothe, and shelter us and give us clean water to drink and free oxygen to breathe. What does the poster in question suggest we replace all those products and processes with, I wonder?
Apropos of which: This TED talk demonstrates how maintaining healthy ecosystems, in this case within a fish farm scenario, directly and materially helps us as well as everything else that lives within and/or depends on them. It is NOT a case of “Us Or Them”.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_how_i_fell_in_love_with_a_fish.html
"…Wanna feed the world? Let’s start by asking ‘How are we gonna feed ourselves?’ Or better, ‘How can we create conditions that enable every community to feed itself?’
“To do that, don’t look at the agribusiness model for the future. It’s really old, and it’s tired. It’s high on capital, chemistry, and machines. And it’s never produced anything really good to eat. Instead, let’s look to the ecological model. That’s the one that relies on two billion years of on-the-job experience…”
I’ve heard it said that every environmental problem we have is made orders of magnitude worse by overpopulation.
All people would need guns then…
The bee column was written 3 years ago, but the honeybee crisis continues. Even those who think this specific event may not be important may still find it a compelling example of the risks run by man’s anti-ecological activities.
(BTW, I’m not sure what you objected to in my remark about lemmings, which I worded to avoid suggesting “willful suicide.”)
I think he is referring to the fact that Lemmings don’t go over cliffs as a group, either willfully or by accident.
Six Billion people on Earth, with the population growing second by second.
Says it all really.