Protect the last of the wild
nature.com
Protect the last of the wild
1–10 of 123 posts
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#2This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, it is arrogant to sit in comfortable chairs imported to areas that live in excess and tell others to live with less so that we may appreciate their wilderness from afar; or ephemerally while we are on vacation. On the other hand, I am reminded of this letter/video which sums up an important ethos: https://vimeo.com/newmanfilm/wildernessletter. We should protect the wilderness because it inspires us to be better.
Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow (we need food and water). But we do need it to remind ourselves where we came from and how complexity can be beautiful. So what do we do?
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#3I'd argue that humanity certainly requires huge tracts of wilderness for its long term survival. So far, we've successfully transformed diverse ecosystems into vast, but basic, mono-cultural 'deserts'.
But - is it sustainable? In the century since the Haber process was introduced, the world has started to buckle at the seams from the results: huge population growth, with accompanying pollution (nitrates, pesticides, algal blooms, etc.) and degradation of biomes. What are the effects on our biochemistry? Plastic pollution is only now being noticed. Pthalates and numerous other estrogen mimickers are silently at work. Antibiotic resistance is increasing.
I think it's too early to conclude that we can indeed survive this. The outlook for the rest of this century is not positive...
A 'wilderness' is a vast library of alternative biotech. Until humanity understands the effects of its impact on Earth's ecosystems and itself, it would be wise to remember this.
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#4This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, it is arrogant to sit in comfortable chairs imported to areas that live in excess and tell others to live with less so that we may appreciate their wilderness from afar; or ephemerally while we are on vacation. On the other hand, I am reminded of this letter/video which sums up an important ethos: https://vimeo.com/newmanfilm/wildernessletter . We should protect the wildern…
> Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow
Can you back this up? I agree with the comment by fractallyte that wilderness is a necessity for long-term survival of humans. Also guaranteeing food and water without wilderness has never been attempted before...
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#5This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, it is arrogant to sit in comfortable chairs imported to areas that live in excess and tell others to live with less so that we may appreciate their wilderness from afar; or ephemerally while we are on vacation. On the other hand, I am reminded of this letter/video which sums up an important ethos: https://vimeo.com/newmanfilm/wildernessletter . We should protect the wildern…
> Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow
It is a very egoistic perspective (at the species level) that we can destroy species of plants and animals (and entire ecosystems) just because they don't serve us.
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#6I'd argue that humanity certainly requires huge tracts of wilderness for its long term survival. So far, we've successfully transformed diverse ecosystems into vast, but basic, mono-cultural 'deserts'. But - is it sustainable? In the century since the Haber process was introduced, the world has started to buckle at the seams from the results: huge population growth, with accompanying pollution (nitrates, pesticides,…
Quite apart from your well made point, just about everyone that "makes it" wants a home in the country with some land, probably some old forest. It's the location for so many leisure activities and holidays. Few want to retire in a city.
We conveniently don't notice the decline of soils, of insects or other species. The arrogance that we can just keep on until humanity is in battery hutches everywhere and everything else divided up between agriculture and industry astounds me. Who knows how many miracle drugs and biotech has been lost in those unknown bacteria and species.
Even if it turns out to be a process that can continue our collective psyche will lose something it apparently desires or needs. So at what cost?
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#7I'd argue that humanity certainly requires huge tracts of wilderness for its long term survival. So far, we've successfully transformed diverse ecosystems into vast, but basic, mono-cultural 'deserts'. But - is it sustainable? In the century since the Haber process was introduced, the world has started to buckle at the seams from the results: huge population growth, with accompanying pollution (nitrates, pesticides,…
My naive impression is that the safest bet for survival would be to improve our technological mastery to a point where we can create near-closed and self sufficient ecosystems for small populations that they can be fully in control of, like deep space habitats. Such habitats should be able to support life inside indefinitely and be able to produce new habitat. And we need to make sure that we can maintain a high level of technological competence even if our population would be severely diminished. Perhaps then can civilization survive almost anything. Not sure if this is a pipe dream.
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#8I'd argue that humanity certainly requires huge tracts of wilderness for its long term survival. So far, we've successfully transformed diverse ecosystems into vast, but basic, mono-cultural 'deserts'. But - is it sustainable? In the century since the Haber process was introduced, the world has started to buckle at the seams from the results: huge population growth, with accompanying pollution (nitrates, pesticides,…
Quite apart from your well made point, just about everyone that "makes it" wants a home in the country with some land, probably some old forest. It's the location for so many leisure activities and holidays. Few want to retire in a city. We conveniently don't notice the decline of soils, of insects or other species. The arrogance that we can just keep on until humanity is in battery hutches everywhere and everything…
Everyone wants the facilities resulting from economies of scales and efficiencies that cities provide, such as entertainment options, access to various labor and product markets, selections of schools, hospitals, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.
At the same time, everyone wants to their own space to do their own thing and raise their family and a peaceful neighborhood where you don't have to worry about dealing with too many others, especially not too far below your socioeconomic class.
This would seem to naturally result in the pattern of rich and poor suburbs clustered around cities with the constant struggle of individual housing vs shared housing, car vs public transport, public parks vs private yards, etc. Only recent factor I see changing is the delay in having children into the 30s means a lot of 20 somethings that aren't looking for suburbs, and if they don't ever have kids then maybe they never will want for suburbs.
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#9I'd argue that humanity certainly requires huge tracts of wilderness for its long term survival. So far, we've successfully transformed diverse ecosystems into vast, but basic, mono-cultural 'deserts'. But - is it sustainable? In the century since the Haber process was introduced, the world has started to buckle at the seams from the results: huge population growth, with accompanying pollution (nitrates, pesticides,…
Could not agree more with this. Evolution on Earth has had a very long time to develop super advanced nanotechnology, which we understand and utilise very poorly and are destroying forever - for what? More beef on the plate, palm oil for products no one needs and a bit of money for one generation?
Beyond being critical to the survival of deeply linked ecosystems, and ultimately ourselves, it's just really stupid to destroy products of millions of years of R&D before we've even begun to unlock their potential. The amount of energy and computation that has gone into that evolution is super valuable and a couple of generations are trading it for profits lasting a blink of an eye.
In general, I find it super strange that multi-generational thinking/optimisation isn't more deeply ingrained in our behaviour as a species.
Re: Protect the last of the wild
#10This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, it is arrogant to sit in comfortable chairs imported to areas that live in excess and tell others to live with less so that we may appreciate their wilderness from afar; or ephemerally while we are on vacation. On the other hand, I am reminded of this letter/video which sums up an important ethos: https://vimeo.com/newmanfilm/wildernessletter . We should protect the wildern…
> Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow Can you back this up? I agree with the comment by fractallyte that wilderness is a necessity for long-term survival of humans. Also guaranteeing food and water without wilderness has never been attempted before...
It seems to me that the opposite assessment requires more justification. Ever since Neolithic, mankind has been domesticating most if not all species it consumed. And we've been deforesting like crazy. We're not hunter gatherers anymore, so our progress has consisted relying less and less on wilderness and more on controlled, artificial environments.
I'm not saying that we don't need wilderness for deeper reasons (say psychological, or in terms on keeping biodiversity for future-proofing our biological pool of domesticated species...). But such hypothetical reliance on wilderness surely seems less obvious than our independence from it.