FA+
Shop
"It's not being used."
11 years ago
General
♥♥♥♥♥♥
♥♥♥♥♥♥ 
The idea that it is ok to destroy an ecosystem just because it "isn't being used" sounds an awful lot like the argument that it is ok to steal land from indigenous people because "they aren't using it."
Should we push out native species who have evolved to their environment and change the landscape to suit our needs just because that landscape appears barren to us? Just because we find it difficult to prosper in a desert does not mean that it is inherently useless as is. Have such proponents considered the possible far reaching consequences of such drastic changes to the landscape? If we completely modified the Sahara to suit our agricultural needs then what impact would be felt in the Amazon? Would the deprivation of nutrient transfer to a system which is a vital link to oxygen replenishment be worth the marginal gains to mankind?
The solution to our ecological crisis is not going to be found in further destruction of ecosystems. We must drastically change the way we view ourselves and our place within nature. The idea that nature only exists to serve man will lead to ruin. The idea that it is ok to destroy a small section of the natural environment because it is only a small section ignores the fact that thousands if not millions of other small sections are being destroyed right alongside it.
We all like to believe that our society is enlightened and that our barbaric nature has been discarded long ago, but the fact is that those barbaric tendencies are a lot closer to the surface than we are willing to admit.
Should we push out native species who have evolved to their environment and change the landscape to suit our needs just because that landscape appears barren to us? Just because we find it difficult to prosper in a desert does not mean that it is inherently useless as is. Have such proponents considered the possible far reaching consequences of such drastic changes to the landscape? If we completely modified the Sahara to suit our agricultural needs then what impact would be felt in the Amazon? Would the deprivation of nutrient transfer to a system which is a vital link to oxygen replenishment be worth the marginal gains to mankind?
The solution to our ecological crisis is not going to be found in further destruction of ecosystems. We must drastically change the way we view ourselves and our place within nature. The idea that nature only exists to serve man will lead to ruin. The idea that it is ok to destroy a small section of the natural environment because it is only a small section ignores the fact that thousands if not millions of other small sections are being destroyed right alongside it.
We all like to believe that our society is enlightened and that our barbaric nature has been discarded long ago, but the fact is that those barbaric tendencies are a lot closer to the surface than we are willing to admit.
A more poignant example would be the drying of the Aral sea due to water diversion. In 50 years, it has shrunk to less than 10% of it's original size.
You do bring up a good example. I've been thinking about specializing in hydrology and have taken a look at several water sources around the world. Alarming would be the word I would use to describe it.
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100......2010.396.html
But should it be weighed against the more positive it would do for humans? Turning the barren Saharan into a agricultural fields (the same way my desert valley was thanks to canals from the Colorado river) may harm the amazon..but would even a little agriculture do so?
In other words, I am arguing that the assumed positives to humanity from such a modifications are greatly outweighed by the negatives brought to the planet as a whole, which includes humanity.