81–90 of 93 posts
Wolves are loving family oriented creatures that only hunt for survival. They have a complex pack order and prioritize the pack over all.
Just like the war on drugs, time has twisted reality and now we have a fear and hatred for the wolf without a real explanation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but skyscraper gardens are not harmony with nature. They’re misguided hubris.
They don't need to be at odds with nature either. Think more solarpunk than cyberpunk. Every building should be designed to provide habitat for nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The story of wolves in Yellowstone gets a very prominent mention in the article and seems to be cited as an inspiration for the movement to reintroduce wolves to Scotland. They don't directly state this, but right after talking about the huge changes observed in Yellowstone there's a section on how Scotland has issues with management of the deer population and suggests that wolves could help.
Huh...you’re right. I skimmed some of the article the first time and missed that it included Yellowstone. It’s still worth looking at the Wikipedia article, though, because the Yellowstone section of the Guardian article doesn’t go as far into how wide ranging the changes were in Yellowstone, such as stabilizing the water table and reducing erosion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why must there be a cause? You can't just "make people better", just because they aren't having the same priorities, desires and morals as you do? That's the mistake the guys that did the mass-relocations of old did. ;) In the long run, there is no silver bullet to fight climate change, pollution, over-population, decreased nativity, poverty, geopolitical power-play, consumerism, good old greed, and the other things…
Yes there are all those hurdles, but assuming they are figured out there’s no way someone would consciously choose to sacrifice planetary ecosystem in the name of “you know, I’d just hate to move”. Making my argument I felt being pushed into idealistic-communism-like tropes, but I think that idea could be achieved in a free world.
You're also assuming that cities are a universal solution. What if living in a more decentralized way is actually better for the environment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes there are all those hurdles, but assuming they are figured out there’s no way someone would consciously choose to sacrifice planetary ecosystem in the name of “you know, I’d just hate to move”. Making my argument I felt being pushed into idealistic-communism-like tropes, but I think that idea could be achieved in a free world.
You are describing simple differences in human beings as problems to be solved. This is an extremely dangerous position to take. Who is to say people in the city are not the ones that need to be "healed". You're also assuming that cities are a universal solution. What if living in a more decentralized way is actually better for the environment?
Considering our growing population, it is achievable through ultra-dense habitats, and this way it is more feasible to implement wilderness entry controls than when living in a decentralised way.
It is obvious that currently there are people who’d just like to live in sparse areas, planet be damned—I bet that'll change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are describing simple differences in human beings as problems to be solved. This is an extremely dangerous position to take. Who is to say people in the city are not the ones that need to be "healed". You're also assuming that cities are a universal solution. What if living in a more decentralized way is actually better for the environment?
You seem to have missed a point upthread. That’s the premise, rewilding 50% of the planet and specifically not allowing humans to enter—not to heal people somewhere but for the sake of the humanity and the ecosystem it’s part of long term. Considering our growing population, it is achievable through ultra-dense habitats, and this way it is more feasible to implement wilderness entry controls than when living in a dec…
I don't think centralization and separating ourselves from nature alone is a viable solution. We need to coexist and find more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways to exist in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to have missed a point upthread. That’s the premise, rewilding 50% of the planet and specifically not allowing humans to enter—not to heal people somewhere but for the sake of the humanity and the ecosystem it’s part of long term. Considering our growing population, it is achievable through ultra-dense habitats, and this way it is more feasible to implement wilderness entry controls than when living in a dec…
No I get the point, I just disagree. I don't think centralization and separating ourselves from nature alone is a viable solution. We need to coexist and find more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways to exist in general.
The premise itself, the idea put forward by OP, is not without downsides and fundamental hurdles that I listed and acknowledged, though it is an interesting idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But do they change the deer's behavior in beneficial ways like wolves?
Beneficial to whom? The deer certainly likes neither the wolf nor the tick. And whether humans like wolves depends on whether eg we'd want to hunt deer for food.
Sure, ticks may kill deer and I guess you can call that a predator but not in the same way as a wolf. Ecosystems are incredibly fragile. The consequences of replacing one species with another are completely unpredictable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I get the point, I just disagree. I don't think centralization and separating ourselves from nature alone is a viable solution. We need to coexist and find more sustainable and environmentally friendly ways to exist in general.
If you disagree with the premise, then you are misplacing your argument. I was replying to a comment that argued this cannot be done nicely and mentioned forced relocations of the past. I argue that there was no precedent for relocation of people done in the name of wilderness preservation, which can be voluntary and with downsides mitigated. The premise itself, the idea put forward by OP, is not without downsides an…
For what it's worth, large parts of the remote and sparsely populated areas are being slowly de-populated anyway. Things like coal mines and other obsolete resource extraction sites are shutting down, and most people move on over time. And then there's morons like me and my family, who moved out because we want to. There's more people like that, but it's not really enough to worry about.
Long story short: If someone is staying behind when businesses, stores and schools close, and the ageing infrastructure crumbles, well, then you're not going to convince that person to move anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beneficial to whom? The deer certainly likes neither the wolf nor the tick. And whether humans like wolves depends on whether eg we'd want to hunt deer for food.
When wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone they changed the behavior of deer in a way that went as far as reducing erosion and redirecting rivers. Sure, ticks may kill deer and I guess you can call that a predator but not in the same way as a wolf. Ecosystems are incredibly fragile. The consequences of replacing one species with another are completely unpredictable.
I am saying that the changes in Yellowstone are pleasing to humans eg because we value diversity, but it's hard (or impossible) to make an absolute judgement call.