Welcome to Gaia! ::

Extinction is an inevitable aspect of nature, and we are not an exception. However, the extinction brought by humans is symptomatic of our population size and subsequent displacement as we require more space and resources. And it will ultimately be our undoing if unchecked.

I think that dreams of going into space merely put off the problem, rather than offer a real solution. Naive if not outright reactionary.

Regardless of whatever pretense of ideology, humans are going to have to come to terms with this sooner or later. Our relationship with nature directly influences our relationship with our own species in regards to issues of hierarchy, scarcity of resources, and understanding our own biology.

I'm more of a social ecologist than a traditional environmentalist, though.

I don't necessarily believe in conserving things for conservation sake, so much as learning to reshape our prevailing culture to live within our means, knowing every time we convert prairies to wasteland, we're only going to hurt ourselves in the long run..

I do consider myself an environmentalist. I mean, a species has to be pretty arrogant to willingly continue screwing up the one thing they depend on for life. I can see it tying into property rights, for sure, but I see it as more of a common sense thing. I mean, we are harming the environment with all of our new technology, and Earth is just about at its carrying capacity for human beings-- not to mention every other species we force into extinction. I also just believe in accountability. We need to be accountable for all our actions, especially those that endanger the world at large.

Well, Joe, I can see what Kagerou is saying because just moving without changing our methods first will only temporarily fix the problem. We'll just keep destroying other planets if we move onto them living the way we do now, and I believe we have no right to do that. It's the same concept as with UHC: it won't do any good in the long run unless the people change their habits first. All I'm saying is that we should look before we leap-- in the case of space colonization, almost literally. If we don't change our methods to be more environmentally friendly before we go to other planets, we'll just destroy other environments in our wake, putting us in an endless cycle. It's just unproductive and arrogant.

You're arguing as if Kagerou's point was tied up in valuing nature for nature's sake. I don't think that's the case. Maybe how we think about land use needs moral reconsideration, maybe not; it isn't that relevant. The point that life gets much less convenient for us if lots of species go extinct or things get much warmer stands independent of whatever supposed moral right grass has to grow and trees have to stand.

The preference for grassland over an ecosystem of nylon-eating bacteria and extremophiles isn't arbitrary, as you suggest. One ecosystem has plants that provide useful services and animals that we eat, one does not. Yes, it's an anthropocentric view of nature. No, humans can't really totally destroy the planet. Yes some prokaryotes may live happily in a giant trash heap. So what?

Actually, it's not a universal pattern of behavior-- not even close. Not even all humans live in such a wasteful manner. Plenty of societies live peacefully with the environment. The first that come to my mind are the Basarwa Bushmen and the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert. Their societies are completely egalitarian in nature, and they only take what they need to survive from their environment. In many ways, their lifestyles are easier than ours-- the Bushmen, a group of hunter gatherers, have more free time than we do, and a more varied diet, leading to overall better health.

I don't know of a single non-human/primate/hominid species that is anywhere near as wasteful as Western Society Homo Sapiens. Not even pre-modern hominids were this wasteful. Even the Neanderthals knew better. Most species experience some from of symbiosis, where they become dependent on another species for survival, and vice versa (except in the case of parasitism, which could also be argued here). We do that all the time; in fact, we domesticate species just for our own use, which is essentially just specialized symbiosis. I see your point that many species would eat themselves out of house and home if they could because they don't see the long-term consequences. The thing is, though, they don't do that because they don't have the resources-- and often, they don't even have the desire. The only reason we have the resources for that is because we make them ourselves.

But we can see the long-term effects of what we do, now that we have the technology that allows us to do that. That's the main difference here. We can make educated guesses at what will happen if we keep living the way we are, backed up by real evidence, and we have a responsibility to fix the problems we cause.

I find that it's mostly farming societies that waste the most. Agriculture means that more people can be fed with less land use, which is an advantage, however: it leads to a less varied diet, which increases the risk for famine and malnutrition, increases the rate at which diseases spread, and makes people live much more closely together. That on its own leads to problems with waste disposal-- an issue which we are currently face to face with. And we now know how to get around it with recycling-- most just choose not to.

I'm studying anthropology right now, so believe me: all of these examples are from my college-level textbook. All the cultures listed above do exist, and there is physical evidence of hominid culture and lifestyle. It is only agricultural, technologically advanced human cultures that live like this. I don't see any rabbits developing nuclear weapons, let alone anyone from a Bushmen tribe.

If we want to go out into space, we need to become a Type 1 civilization first. In order to become type 1, we need to:

1. Get our asses off of fossil fuels
2. Be able to control our weather, eco, and climate systems at the snap of a finger to our advantage.

I'm an environmentalist. I care about the planet. Yes I do. However, I don't think that taking care of ecosystems and this planet is the right thing to do because its "moral". Nope. I argue that its the right thing to do because it is in our interest to defend the biosphere and the ecosystem for our own human health.

I also argue for geo-engineering.

Joe, I just don't want to go off into space, I want us to have a place we can all call our capital planet. Kind of like a capital city. A place that is a home for humanity.

Also, there is no guarantee that there is another place we can live in within our local star cluster.

This planet is important. Our civilization is important. We must preserve ourselves and hold mastery over everything, including this earth.

(comment unrelated)
Fallout 3 siggy, FTW