nature conservation and our role in protecting our planet

I am, above all else, a lover of nature. I feel at peace in the forest and away from the hustle and bustle of the city. Unfortunately more and more wilderness is being replaced with strip malls and suburban sprawls. It's incredibly disheartening to see this go on, knowing someone is making incredible profits off of the destruction of nature. Recently there has been talk of the U.S Secretary of Agriculture wanting to open up the Tongrass National Forest in Alaska(pic rel) for business. This would be a clear cut logging venture and a road would likely be built through it. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/31/alaska-tongass-national-forest-at-risk-logging-perdue The article has a bias to it, labeling this as a trump administration problem when this is only a symptom of a much larger problem. What I wanted to talk about is where we, as individuals, stand in the preservation of our planet against those who just want to profit off of the natural resources it holds.

Same here fellow lainon. The biggest problem is overpopulation. We had about 1 billion people in the 1800s. Now only 200 years later we have almost 10 times as many people. Central Europe had about twice as much forest 2000 years ago. Don't even get me started on the amazon rainforest. It's difficult to reduce the human population. I hope that advances in science and the economy will make getting children a choice rather than a requirement to survive, like in India and Africa. Ironically organic food is often worse for the environment because it requires a larger area to grow. If we had one billion people instead of 8 billion we could live like kings. Obviously the economy would take a huge hit. My hope is that automation and scientific advancements will make human labor unnecessary and humans will only focus on science and arts. With that we can reduce the impact on nature, and hopefully reduce the amount of people.

Nature (which I will later argue doesn't actually exist) is already far beyond saving, at least in the sense that you want to. Climate change is well past the point of no return and the desire to "Save The Earth" is sudo-pagan zealotry. If Nature is one thing, it is ever changing. The idea of what is Natural or not is really just an extension of our judeo-christian morality, ie completely arbitrary. Don't get me wrong, trees are nice and I love animals. However, the whole idea of Nature is a vague term which doesn't actually describe anything. What is less natural about a mega-city compared to a jungle besides the comparative lack of humans. But humans are just monkeys with bigger brains! There's nothing special about us! Anyway what I'm arguing for is that rather than trying to fight the inevitable, we should prepare for global Eco-catastrophe and use it to our advantage. I have attached a good book on the subject which I would recommend (it is biased towards an anarchist viewpoint, but even if you disagree with that there's a lot of useful information in there). Embrace the cataclysm my friend, let's march towards the end of the world with smiles on our faces.

>>9261 will you elaborate on nature supposedly not existing? I downloaded the pdf, seems interesting

>>9262 Not to answer for Lain but perhaps she means that the distinction between what is wild and what is civilized is a false distinction. There is no place on the planet untouched by our activities somehow. There is trash in the deepest ocean trench, most forest on Earth are second or third growth at least, even vast deserts are creations of ancient cultures greedy to cut down every tree they could.

I agree that the nature/human dichotomy is a false one, but I disagree with >>9261 when they seem to argue that the entire discourse of environmentalism is moot. It's clear from a common-sense point of view that human civilisation is categorically different to pre-agrarian nature (not that I'm arguing for a return to such nature). There are of course many metrics (biodiversity, carbon intensity, etc) that will highlight this. Personally I think that the insane increase in urbanisation could actually help us in the fight for conservation. The more we live in cities (and the more efficient we get at farming) the more we can set aside other areas for other creatures. I really love the idea of "wildlife corridors"[0] as a necessary expansion of the 20th-century idea of national parks. It's also been pointed out[1] that land-use is one of the crucial, yet rarely-discussed, issues in the path towards ameliorating climate change. This ties in with the idea that we need to "do more with less" and use the remainder for building up natural biodiversity. Unfortunately, it seems like (near-)vegetarianism is an inevitable conclusion of this outlook ... and people in general seem to reject this vehemently, on an emotional level. [0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-world-really-set-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/ [1] There was a DEFCON or BlackHat talk on this ... anyone? I can't find the link right now

>>9266 There is a problem with the way forward you suggested, with intense urbanization and managed green spaces for wildlife. A hundred squabbling nations already can't agree on how to reduce emissions so how are we going manage an entire planet together in the future? Things getting worse won't force us to band together; that dynamic works on the scale of a family or a village. On the scale of billions of people bossed by governments with advanced militaries and massive energy requirements, we can only expect more strife and destruction as they fight over resources.

>>9260 The good news is that the liberal arts are being advocated for as part of future education. I think a study was done earlier in the year, or perhaps last year, in which a researcher was pointing out that the next wave of skilled workers need to be able to think in creative and innovative ways. This is especially necessary since machines are poised to replace so much of the non-innovative workforce The Western world has moved beyond a labor economy and into an information economy, which in turn is giving rise to an ideas economy. It's just early days. The bad news is, the Western world, along with the rest of the planet, is woefully underprepared for the next plague. The CDC in America has been sounding the drum for years on the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and in one case a man's leg had to be amputated because the hospital literally used eveything they had to stop a bacterial infection that would not submit. Hate to be a pessimist, but I predict the Humanity's overpopulation will cease to be a problem within a generation or two. It's just too easy for a viral or bacterial illness to propogate in the current situation.

>>9260 >It's difficult to reduce the human population. not exactly... in fact the next 20 years will probably show just how easy it will be. I wish I could post all of the sources I have found over the years, but my post would be pages long. the tl:dr is the lack of conservation is going to come back and hit humanity hard enough to start wars, which several countries are already preparing for. hopefully, it wont come to using rapid depopulating weapons, but as of now, they do not appear to be off the table for many countries. you are absolutely correct about the population and its effects >>9261 this is a good summary of many different facets of the environmental problem, thanks lainon, please accept this pdf (a little dated nowiirc 2012 was the first publishing, but updated in the last few months) to further your studies (link becasue unable to upload for some reason) http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Fresh%20Water%20Augmentation.pdf >>9262 not him, but I have heard many theories about "nature" being essentially the way the world is, i.e. an ever changing system. the idea that "save the trees brah" is the common definition of "nature" (i.e. ecosystems in their untampered state) which is not entirely true, as they are constantly being changed by forces beyond their own control >>9266 there are several military documents on where climate change is going from a strategic standpoint, and the biggest driving force is not "do more with less" but "how to get their soykaf before they get ours" or "how to stop them from using up all their soykaf so they come for ours" depending on which country wrote the document. the important thing to note is that many countries are already posturing to take control of resources a decade from now >Personally I think that the insane increase in urbanisation could actually help us in the fight for conservation. The more we live in cities (and the more efficient we get at farming) the more we can set aside other areas for other creatures. I really love the idea of "wildlife corridors"[0] as a necessary expansion of the 20th-century idea of national parks. though a good intention, this is unfortunately naive, since more megacorps are acquiring rights to land either directly, or indirectly (i.e. leasing it or buying it, or taking advantage of "public" land). Urbanization is causing an adverse effect where people are needing more resources to build, and then there is pollution of tearing down old infrastructure. energy cost is probably the biggest polluter, but there was a scientist who advocated for using nuclear, then dumping the waste in the woods, since wild animals and plants adapt to the radioactivity, but humans do not, which essentially preserves nature from human destruction

I view wildlife as an add-on benefit to humanity since it can help provide us with resources such as food, clothing material, fertilizer, and other valuables. I view human beings as being part of nature like any other animal (humans are technically animals) so it is considered participating in nature to kill a plant or another animal for resource as long as it is done in a way that works with ecological limitations. I will say that I am always skeptical towards big environmental movements since they come across as controlled opposition and create new and worse problems. One example is the green energy movement which goes on and on about "manmade global warming" caused by too much CO2 (exhale) but proposes initiatives that use heavy amounts of rare earth metals to make "green energy" which then leads to other issues involving mining contamination. Also, I believe an ice age of significant magnitude is coming and the strange weather is a sign of an upcoming change regardless of human activity. Another one is how people keep talking on both sides of the aisle about disposable plastic straws and plastic bags while ignoring that the majority of plastic-related pollution in the oceans have to do with African and Asian rivers. They are not caused by a kid drinking a box of juice with a plastic straw. Overall, I agree ecological conservation is important and I am trying to get back into hunting and fishing so it is definitely a must for me but I am concerned that people get so swept up in selective narratives that they end up falling for controlled opposition and mindlessly obeying the will of hypocrites and carpetbaggers. Examples of such hypocrites include the wealthy celebrities who fly in a private jet to give a speech telling people in Minnesota to cut back on heating in the winter and telling people in Arizona to cut back on air conditioning in the summer only to then fly back to their mansions that use up plenty of energy. Other examples include animal rights activists who bitch about hunters even though hunters pay for land preservation and anti-poaching initiatives with license purchases and safari hunters have the meat of their kills inspected and given to villagers yet those activists eat imported exotic foods that contribute to water shortages in South America as well as desertification.

Let's assume for a moment that we're spot on about how climate change and disease are going to shape the rest of this century (at the least). Assume the existance of a run-of-the-mill wage slave. This person lives in an apartment, probably lives paycheck to paycheck, and is already cutting back on expenses to pay the bills. If the predictions in this thread about the coming times are true, then we can expect this person to experience power blackouts, loss of phone service, violence and panic. How to prepare for this? What would the plan be for this person, slowly and little-by-little, develop the tools and techniques to deal with the situation? Just off the top of my head, I would think back-to-nature tools. Think knives, compasses, maybe a magnifying glass for fire, lots of rope. If possible, head out to nature on the weekends to practice using these items. Then, when things go bad, just head to the forest and hope for the best. I base all this on someone I used to know whose parents ran a Boy Scout camp. We were on the conversation of disease outbreak (this was around the time of the Bird Flu panic) and he mentioned that if something like that showed up in our city, he'd just pack his bags and head into the forest and stay there until it was all over. Good idea? Bad idea? Unworkable? Possible? An inquiring mind wants to know.

>>9407 You're not the only person with that idea The forest isn't very big anymore I don't think that is a very good plan In fact, I think you will only be in a worse position The group of you will deplete the forest resources quickly This apartment dweller's best bet will be to join the local military They'll have the best weapons and resources In exchange for shooting the other apartment dwellers who didn't join the "looters" of course When it gets ugly, there is nowhere to run and hide You'll need to face it head on

>>9407 those people are known as preppers, and it is only feasible in extremely isolated low population density areas (where people are likely self sufficient anyway) the problem is these problems will mostly affect URBAN areas, where resources are inherently scarce. a more realistic exploration of this idea would be cuba during the "special period" except unlike cubans generally homogeneous and community centered values, you would be looking at something more along the lines of new orleans after hurricane katrina ("you loot - we shoot" and police and gangs both using violence and committing crimes). having seen natural disasters first hand in the united states, can confirm looters on day 1 of no power. the best route to take is to have an extensive rain collection system and urban garden along with having arms to defend yourself and a way to keep a low profile. note that in major cities, weapons are often restrictive, as are keeping food animals and space is not widely available for growing food legally (growing on other peoples property) also individualism is likely a death sentence, because you can't always keep alert. bear in mind the military has been discussing these ideas for some time now because gangs of marauders will unironically turn try to run cities criminal underworlds... pretty cyberpunk if you ask me

While I agree that we should preserve nature and live alongside it, I hate any environmental agenda pushed by governments, mostly because they barely do anything useful and are just means to suck up tax money. What we should do is deny the greed that corporations, bankers and government pushes onto us and learn to live off the land more.

BU-BU-BUT CARBON TAXING SAVES THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE IS NO WAY THAT COMPANIES WILL JUST BUY ALL THE LICENSING TO USE THE SAME AMOUNT OF CARBON WHILE TRANSFERRING THE EXPENSE TO CONSUMERS

>>9263 This is exactly what I meant, you put it into words better than I could. >>9266 If it's possible to get powerful entities like megacorps or states to take environmentalist action then sure, let them do it. However, from what I've read it seems this will only slow the change, not reverse it. It's time to accept that we are heading for a new stable hot-earth state. I don't think this will be the end of humanity, nor even the end of other flora and fauna. It's just going to shift the balance a lot. Things are going to get a lot less comfortable for humans and a lot more comfortable for say ants or cockroaches. Whatever doesn't survive doesn't deserve to. Pandas that can't breed? Let em die off! What gives us the right to play god with conserving that which is doomed? Sure I'm pessimistic about our future, but if I know one thing about humans as a species it's that our greatest strength is out ability to adapt. It can also be a big weakness, allowing us to create and live within systems which work against our interests simply because our tolerance for bullsoykaf is so high. Mass die offs will probably happen. The desert will consume more and more of our land. Humanity will likely look more and more like mad max. And guess what. Mad max is fuarrrking sick. I cannot wait. Add some nuclear war and governmental collapse due to climate induced resource scarcity? Things are going to get spicy. Modern life is way too boring and monotonous. Most other animals have a much higher day to day threat of dying than humans. We've just accidentally evened the playing field. Oh and don't even get me started on what's gonna happen once cybernetics are in the equation, it's gonna be a blast! Sure I'm larping, but at least I'm having fun! See you in the desert wasteland lains, I'll share some water with you! haha just kidding get your own water.

>>9261 >The idea of what is Natural or not is really just an extension of our judeo-christian morality, ie completely arbitrary. Obviously one could argue that any name we have assigned is arbitrary, but that is usually beside the point. What if we define "nature" to mean "the environment in which our ancestors evolved in"? That nature is definitely being destroyed, as outlined in the OP. Since we are naturally adapted to that nature, it is not obvious that without it we'll be able to thrive, that its destruction will bear no harm. Even if as humans we are able to adapt to living in urban and industrial environments, it's curious how many people are still strongly called to nature - if not to camp and backpack in the wild, then at least to go sight seeing, or for a walk in the park.

>>9421 Carbon taxing is very different from carbon credits as in cap and trade, don't mix them. Yes, taxes in general aren't always paid by the one who's being taxed, but that's a downside of any taxation. A classic example, if you tax luxury yacht purchases, the rich will just buy fewer yachts rather than absorb the cost of the tax, hitting yacht makers harder than the buyers. So if you want to tax the rich to redistribute wealth it's inefficient. If you just want there to be fewer yachts (less carbon released), it's very effective.