Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need the wolf

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: We need the wolf

#51

Post by eru »

jamil7 wrote: post #21
eru wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, most of the globe is still wild. We have barely started colonizing the oceans after all. It would be interesting to rewild much of the land mass as well. However, politics is often against that. Eg see those heartfelt efforts to rescue dying towns in the Appalachians or the Great Plains in the US. Or the general subsidies for suburban / exurban living (like eg the whole structure of USPS).

The oceans might not be colonised in a traditional sense of the word but they’ve very much felt the effects of our presence and are in pretty dire shape.

Yes, that's true. Alas, it's also true for many wilderness areas on land. Eg air pollution doesn't stop at national park borders.

Re: We need the wolf

#52

Post by eru »

onikolas7 wrote: post #30
vixen99 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tomorrow? Of course animals make conscious decisions. This orangutan had, prior to implemention, made a conscious decision to build a hammock by tying a sheet to the cage bars. https://roaring.earth/orangutan-builds-a-hammock/

The orangutan's ability to build a hammock does not change its responsibility towards its environment (as its ability to alter it is still very low). However, my ability to start a fire does come with significant responsibility.

Where do beavers and their damns land in your estimation?

Re: We need the wolf

#53

Post by fogihujy »

strogonoff wrote: post #45
fogihujy wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those of us who are living a quiet life on a small plot of land in one of those areas? Forced relocation into a physically and culturally unfamiliar place? "Sorry, you're not a part of the problem, but you live in the same area as those who are. Off you go!"? There has been attempts at mass re-locations of people before. It usually didn't turn out well.

Were there ever mass relocations of people done with the specific goal of preserving and re-wilding nature? I actually found the idea really interesting. Though one of my parents is living a quiet life on a small piece of land and I entertained that idea myself, I personally find the sacrifice worth it. However, some difficulties would have to be addressed first: 1. Lack of trust in each other, authorities and instit…

No. Many re-locations were supposedly for the common good, though.

The physical part is easy since most people will see cities as cramped nightmare-fuel regardless of who moves there first.

The psychosocial part will be a nightmare to handle, though. You won't just be moving people from A to B; you will be erasing countless generations worth of cultural identity, placing people in an unfamiliar environment where their previously acquired skills will be largely irrelevant, so you need to re-educate most of them. And you will be doing it using force, because I guarantee you there will be a lot of opposition.

Oh, and you need to get the current urban population to accept that they need to pay for it all, because, you know, you'll be taking everything from the rural population. Furthermore, they need to integrate and intermingle with the recent arrivals to prevent them from becoming a new underclass.

I see what you're trying to argue, but we've got several recent waves of migrants facing less problems and which European societies still failed to integrate properly. If we can't do it with a few million immigrants, then I assure you that it can't be done with the 115 million people living on the European countryside.

Re: We need the wolf

#54

Post by mulmen »

eru wrote: post #50
mulmen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USPS provides a critical service. While some rural areas may have reached the end of their viable existence the USPS still exists to serve places where the market has not yet offered a solution. It's a critical service to the functioning and growth of a nation of our size.

See, that's exactly the point. If you want people to move away from those areas so that wilderness can take over, you should not subsidize them to stay there. Whether you like rewilding more or the critical service that the USPS provides, is up to you. But you should recognize that they are at least somewhat in conflict.

Yeah, no. You don't get people to move by making their lives horrible. see: coal country.

The USPS is more of a service to guarantee equal opportunity than it is a subsidy. This year is a great example of that. The USPS is the organization tasked with collecting and transporting ballots. That's not the kind of thing I want entrusted to the free market.

You have presented a false choice between rewilding and the USPS. They are entirely separate topics.

People need mail service where they live. Taking away basic services to force them to move is inhumane.

Re: We need the wolf

#55

Post by strogonoff »

fogihujy wrote: post #53
strogonoff wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were there ever mass relocations of people done with the specific goal of preserving and re-wilding nature? I actually found the idea really interesting. Though one of my parents is living a quiet life on a small piece of land and I entertained that idea myself, I personally find the sacrifice worth it. However, some difficulties would have to be addressed first: 1. Lack of trust in each other, authorities and instit…

No. Many re-locations were supposedly for the common good, though. The physical part is easy since most people will see cities as cramped nightmare-fuel regardless of who moves there first. The psychosocial part will be a nightmare to handle, though. You won't just be moving people from A to B; you will be erasing countless generations worth of cultural identity, placing people in an unfamiliar environment where thei…

We seem to be mostly on the same page, although I think the biggest barriers arise from mutual distrust and rogue actors. (Re)education, adjustment, integration, the logistics of the move—all would be possible given willing understanding citizens, fair and efficient management of the process, international cooperation, and just a few more technological advancements (which, compared to the rest, starts to look like the easy part).

Edit: one caveat is that there may be legitimate disagreements about the science, e.g. what probabilities to consider sufficient and what models to use when predicting whether such an expensive effort to revitalise the planet will in fact give the desired effect.

Also, there is at least one objective downside to localising human presence to ultra-dense habitats that I have missed: a catastrophic black swan event could suddenly wipe out a much larger percentage of human population at once. This downside theoretically could be thoroughly addressed through technology, but that technology is probably very far out as of now.

Re: We need the wolf

#56

Post by rorykoehler »

mulmen wrote: post #41
rorykoehler wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Urban densification including urban farming in skyscrapers. Desalination would need to go mainstream too. Of course many will be upset they can't live in a pile on 4 acres. I also have little confidence this would be a popular move given the outrageous individualist fundamentalism we've managed to create in society but I am convinced it is essential to avoiding systemic collapse.

How is that better than living in harmony with nature? A handful of acres can support a family if properly cared for. Why is living in boxes and pretending the world doesn't exist preferable to coexisting with it? I'm skeptical of anyone who is convinced of anything. Especially that we can do a better job than nature.

We still need our cities to be in harmony with nature. Humans are frighteningly destructive. Everywhere we go gets destroyed be it by industry or careless individual actions. We cannot leave this to individual choice fraught with conflicts of interests and sociopathy.

Re: We need the wolf

#57

Post by rorykoehler »

mulmen wrote: post #39
rorykoehler wrote: post #6

We should rewild 50% of the world and ban humans from entering without a permit. Permits should only be given to those with legitimate professional requirements.

This seems to imply we could develop half the world, which seems like a lot more than we have done today. Your description of controlled access sounds like the BLM. 50% is too arbitrary to be compelling, what makes you pick that number?

It's about containment. Now we are everywhere. You fly over Malysia and Indonesia and the whole place is plantations.

Re: We need the wolf

#59

Post by onikolas7 »

eru wrote: post #52
onikolas7 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The orangutan's ability to build a hammock does not change its responsibility towards its environment (as its ability to alter it is still very low). However, my ability to start a fire does come with significant responsibility.

Where do beavers and their damns land in your estimation?

If we plotted potential for environmental impact(Y) vs moral agency(X), beavers would be up and to the left, orangutans bottom right and humans up and to the right (beating both on both axis).

Re: We need the wolf

#60

Post by rorykoehler »

strogonoff wrote: post #55
fogihujy wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Many re-locations were supposedly for the common good, though. The physical part is easy since most people will see cities as cramped nightmare-fuel regardless of who moves there first. The psychosocial part will be a nightmare to handle, though. You won't just be moving people from A to B; you will be erasing countless generations worth of cultural identity, placing people in an unfamiliar environment where thei…

We seem to be mostly on the same page, although I think the biggest barriers arise from mutual distrust and rogue actors. (Re)education, adjustment, integration, the logistics of the move—all would be possible given willing understanding citizens, fair and efficient management of the process, international cooperation, and just a few more technological advancements (which, compared to the rest, starts to look like th…

This sums up my position much more eloquently than I could have done it.
Post reply on HN