Page 1 of 5 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 67
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default Do We Have An Obligation To Preserve The Natural World As It Once Was?

    Say, in the case of the amiable elephant, or the peaceful yet terrifying gorilla, two animals that have been on the verge of extinction largely driven by caused human social problems.

    Or for example, the destruction of millions of acres of land and environments that would be of good natural use. For example, with Brazil by removing trees annual flooding washes away the minerals and destroys much needed seeds and topsoil. With Haiti for example, it has led to a completely arid land with 93% of Haiti's trees being destroyed for cooking fuel.

    Let's not stop there, we know the problem of hunting the noblest of all of North America's creatures, the Grey Wolf, out of its range and at some point near extinction due to sprawling farmlands and suburbs.

    Anyways.

    Does mankind have an obligation to not continue its path of development, which necessitates the destruction of natural landscapes and environments to sustain consumption? Sprawl for example, is a major killer, and I've seen towns where they've annihilated thousands of acres for a few hundred people to live in since people were opting for houses built in bundles of 50-100 distances apart, utterly ruining the wooded environment.

    Continuing that. Do we have an obligation to also reintroduce and reconstruct environments that were once destroyed? The city of Toronto has perhaps one of the most unpleasant bayfronts, but the city plans to return part of it as a civilian park/provincial conservation area, which it once was maybe 150 years ago.

    Or for example, the fact that we have thoroughly wiped out Tiger populations throughout the world. Though there are projects to reconstruct certain lineages of tiger subspecies, do we as humans, ought to extend this and recreate sustainable environments for the species we once hunted for sport?

    So the three questions present itself.

    Are we obliged to preserve nature given our current knowledge of it?

    Second, are we obliged to reintroduce/reconstruct environments as best as possible, with reintroductions of species that might be extinct in the wild, or extirpated from certain areas?

    Third. And a bit of a tangent. But what role, if any, does nature play for mankind? Does it play the role of a "commodity" needed for industrial and economic growth? Does it play the role of once being our containment, but now must be our responsibility? Does it play any role but what we wish to do with it, on the individual and group level?

    I can only say that hopefully as mankind becomes more in root with his fundamentally natural and animal-based conception of himself via that which was initiated by Darwin, mankind can hopefully become more in tune to the values of natural role as well as the importance of some form of balance or sustainability, meaning adopting green and reuseable energies/industries.

    This calls for rejecting arrogant fundamentalist ideas I've seen propogated around, originating from Genesis 1:29-30

    Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

    And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
    This basis of thought is one of the reasons why conservatives do not care for the environment, since the idea is that nature being exhaustible, and a buff, heroic Jesus Christ returning on a white horse with sword in hand, there's no reason for environmental sustainability.

    But to be fair though, sane religious people like the Catholic school board where I grew up had a very strong environmental initiative, and heavily broadcasted environmentalist slogans like "The meek shall inherit the earth, but we must preserve it" and etc.

  2. #2
    Banned indef's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,980

    Default

    Reads title..

    sees wall of text...

    doesn't read said wall...

    answers no.

  3. #3
    8000+
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    8,076

    Default

    Always love reading your posts, Strawberry.

    I'm always torn between views, very indecisive about stuff. Part of me believes that we shouldn't fuck with nature. The other part of me realizes that over 99% of species that have ever existed have gone extinct. But we are obviously the most evolved species, if it's survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, should we even care? Actually yea we should, because we should be intelligent enough to realize that it's moral.

    Sorry just typing what's going on in my brain right now. I didn't really give you an answer, sorry.
    Last edited by Jedicake; 07-12-2012 at 05:09.

  4. #4
    5000+ GirlyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    5,050

    Default

    Preserve it as it once was? Like, when? When the entire earth was covered with ice, when the entire earth was a jungle, when the earth was one continent?

    I'm not following you. We change the earth very subtly and the earth changes itself dramatically. In the long run we should be concerned about the earth changing us. In the meantime, the proven benefits of nature (soil health, consequences you mentioned) are good enough reason to not be stupid or we face not only endangering animal species but ourselves as well, as you mentioned.
    Last edited by GirlyMan; 07-12-2012 at 05:12. Reason: blah blah

  5. #5

    Default

    yes

  6. #6
    4000+
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    4,900

    Default

    To an extent.
    What will an attack from Russia look like?



    Quote Originally Posted by Caffy View Post
    palo god saved my cock!

  7. #7
    9000+ PirateGlen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    San Diego CA
    Posts
    9,161

    Default

    I think the greatest concern is for changes that will have systemic and unforeseeable consequences. I've joked a few times about how Pandas are lucky they're cute because they provide zero ecological significance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reigngod View Post
    Deductive reasoning has noing to do with logic. In fact deductive reasoning is illogical. Go define logic and come back to the discussion an educated man.

  8. #8
    7000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Locash
    Posts
    7,385

    Default

    Girlyman pretty much nailed all the points I'd raise on this issue. To the extent it is beneficial to us, we should steward nature; restoring it to some mythical past is sentimental new age hippie bullshit.


    "Everytime you PK a newb, a breakdancer shitkicks a baby."-Goty

  9. #9
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,421

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vanno View Post
    Girlyman pretty much nailed all the points I'd raise on this issue. To the extent it is beneficial to us, we should steward nature; restoring it to some mythical past is sentimental new age hippie bullshit.
    This pretty much. As much as is feasible and practical.

    Disclaimer: Did not read a single word of the OP, too many words and too little time.

  10. #10
    1000+
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    1,880

    Default

    Any conception of an unchanging, eternally stagnant global ecosystem in need of protection is a fabrication made by men looking to fill their need for self importance with a world that revolves around their otherwise meaningless existence.

    Life, and the world as we know it exists without purpose. Why bother preserving the environment when you will be dead long before mankind loses the ability to survive on earth?

    Even still, why not attribute this to yet another great and mystical cycle of life? In a few billion years, the sun will have imparted enough energy into the surface matter to produce new life and start a new cycle here on earth, if not elsewhere.

  11. #11
    7000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Montréal, Québec
    Posts
    7,375

    Default

    we have an obligation to not go out of our way to fuck it up.

    Join us on Twitch or on our forums!

  12. #12

    Default

    One day a spiteful universe will fling one hell of an apocalypse on the human race and answer the question for us. Existence does not suffer humanity.

  13. #13
    13,000+
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Swing Approves
    Posts
    13,249

    Default

    Use what we need and not waste, consider future results of our actions if we leave things unperturbed. Develop renewables or ethical alternatives.

    So in effect yes, we have an obligation to what resources are there but also to ourselves and future generations.
    The Swing - IMMORTALS
    Class: Swing
    Roles: 1) Swing Approves
    2) JUST AS PLANNED
    3) No u
    4) Faka you mutha

  14. #14
    11,000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    UK, obviously
    Posts
    11,388

    Default

    No. Of course not.

    But do you only do things if you're obligated to do them?
    Quote Originally Posted by Brannoc View Post
    You are clearly awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by StainlessSteelRat View Post
    Being socially progressive does not make you 'advanced'.

  15. #15

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •