I just had a childish thought. Why don't we just completely trash the barrier reef and focus on saving the next reef that isn't completely trashed.
The GBR is one of the least trashed reefs, I think that's the point.
Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
121–130 of 147 posts
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#122This is so incredibly sad, and I feel so helpless that this is slipping through our fingers. I fear I’ll never get a chance to see a coral reef in real life, and it looks almost certain that my children won’t. Is there anything we can do as individuals to help? I tried looking into conservation efforts but it seems like any amount of money we could hope to donate isn’t going to make a drop of difference to sea temper…
Won't directly help, but you can contribute some time to help us better understand the current state of (some key reefs on) the GBR: greatreefcensus.org
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately this is the correct answer and I’m just now realizing it. Basically this means everyone going mostly or entirely vegetarian, restricting air travel, clean transport and energy and reduction of general production of crap (not only because the crap itself produces warming but also the shipping).
No, it's really not, because individual choice is a relatively small proportion of the damage done by corporate entities and aggregations of people that serve other masters and don't have either the will or the ability to amend their own behavior. By all means do all those things: I go in that direction myself. But also vote, because there are damages that will not be remedied short of large-scale wielding of power,…
I guess I hit a nerve with my comment and it came off a little harsh. I mean those points I said in all sincerity because it’s been 40-50 years and the top-down approach really has not come about in the timeliness required to prevent the worst case scenarios. I don’t actually believe every one of the people of the world will change their standards of living to meet what I said, however...
I don’t think this is a similar scenario to banning lead gas or aerosols harmful to ozone. These changes, if implemented by the government, would effect families’ dinner plates, the way they get around, how much and what they can buy and how they throw things away when they’re already used to things the way they are. It would severely limit their ability to travel freely. And we can say that new technologies will arise to take the place of those things that were lost but there will almost certainly be a gap between when we would need to lose access to those things like cheap transport and meat and when the new tech came out (high speed electric planes, lab grown meat, etc.). Basically any way you look at it, the average person NEEDS to have a lower standard of living for the foreseeable future to prevent the worst of climate change. This plan of action is not popular anywhere, so obviously it will never be implemented by any top-down approach.
Again just my thoughts. Didn’t mean to hit a nerve here.
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an incredibly anthropocentric perspective and possibly not one shared by the person you're replying to, so the name calling is out of line.
Until we find something capable of the level of creation and higher order thought we are, preferably without some of our negatives, then being anthropocentric is the only logical view to have.
Why? Who says creation and higher order thought is a good thing?
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've already reproduced so you've already struck your blow and it's too late to take it back now.
If everyone who cares about the environment doesn't have kids, this just ensures that the children of those who don't care about the environment will rule the world. And political stances are remarkably heritable.
They rule the world now anyway.
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#126I know this is a sensitive topic with in the west but how about reducing meat consumption (esp red meat) so we cut down ghg emissions. plus more eco-friendly transportation like EVs & fewer flights for vacations. as the saying goes an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
Or we could do something that actually helps like moving transportation and power generation to renewables.
Meat consumption is a huge driver of agriculture, which is responsible for the run off chemicals that are killing the reefs and it requires even more transportation and power consumption! Stop being so smug, you're clueless.
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an incredibly anthropocentric perspective and possibly not one shared by the person you're replying to, so the name calling is out of line.
Until we find something capable of the level of creation and higher order thought we are, preferably without some of our negatives, then being anthropocentric is the only logical view to have.
Until humans find something capable of the level of creation that humans deem higher order, then human logic is the only viable measurement?
This is a circular argument for anthropocentrism. It makes no attempt to define any of its qualifying characteristics from outside the human perspective.
To some, coral reefs, rainforests, and biodiversity are all a level of creation higher order than what humans can produce. Those things didn't need us to exist. In fact we ruin them. Not to mention other forms of created beauty humans haven't figured out how to ruin yet, such as sunsets or starry skies.
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until we find something capable of the level of creation and higher order thought we are, preferably without some of our negatives, then being anthropocentric is the only logical view to have.
Why? Who says creation and higher order thought is a good thing?
I do. Moral and ethical relativism does not protect you from having to stake a claim on a set of thoughts and values and standing by them.
You're more than welcome to think not of course, however this is definitely a more common thought than not. There's a larger shared set of values that people tend to hold even if it's not objective and I think you'd have to go to great lengths to prove me incorrect regarding those things being good to the majority, and even greater lengths that the opposite thought is good at all.
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until we find something capable of the level of creation and higher order thought we are, preferably without some of our negatives, then being anthropocentric is the only logical view to have.
Until humans find something capable of the level of creation that humans deem higher order, then human logic is the only viable measurement? This is a circular argument for anthropocentrism. It makes no attempt to define any of its qualifying characteristics from outside the human perspective. To some, coral reefs, rainforests, and biodiversity are all a level of creation higher order than what humans can produce. Th…
Sure, but I'd have to grant you anything other than the human perspective matters most first and you've already assumed it does where as I remain unconvinced. You made a pretty out there statement and I provided what is in all likely hood the common opinion.
I think the burden is on you here if you want people not to believe humans, of which I assume you and I are a part of, and our perspectives matter the most.
Until the coral reef learns to speak up and say, hey I'm putting my foot down. Humans and our choices determine it's continued existence. That alone makes our perspectives the most important if you want to continue having a coral reef, because it's our perspectives you'd need to be changing to keep it around.
We are for better or worse the arbiters around these parts.
Re: Barrier Reef doomed as up to 99% of coral at risk, report finds
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until we find something capable of the level of creation and higher order thought we are, preferably without some of our negatives, then being anthropocentric is the only logical view to have.
Until humans find something capable of the level of creation that humans deem higher order, then human logic is the only viable measurement? This is a circular argument for anthropocentrism. It makes no attempt to define any of its qualifying characteristics from outside the human perspective. To some, coral reefs, rainforests, and biodiversity are all a level of creation higher order than what humans can produce. Th…
> This is a circular argument for anthropocentrism. It makes no attempt to define any of its qualifying characteristics from outside the human perspective.
You won't be able to do this. Human minds will make human arguments. Even if you had a "higher order" perspective, human minds would only be able to comprehend it in their own terms. Definition? Perspective? These themselves are human notions.
> sunsets or starry skies
Happen thanks to our atmosphere, in a narrow wavelength of EM that precambrian critters found useful to eat each other with. Beauty is in the eye of the anthropocentric beholder.
The circularity is unavoidable. Like induction, you just have to be okay with it.