not really. i was humouring the lack of perspective people have about extinction, and y'know, it's the same thing with school shootings. the stats have been way down any way you look at it, and it just so happens the prevailing sentiment couldn't be further from the truth. it's not helpful.
The statistics on gun violence appeared to have actually doubled last year, rather than plummeted...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../18134232/gun-violence-schools-mass-shootings
However, for the sake of argument let's accept your premise that the numbers went way down. The he rate of school schootings between one year and the previous is an appropriate comparison, rather than a comparison such as shootings in school being dwarfed by the number of people shot in a war. You are making an unreasonable comparison to something so broad and extreme as every life form that has ever gone extinct over billions of years in order undermine the topic. You are set up a fantastical standard that must be met before you become concerned, usung it it to justify having no real reasons for concern.
that's all pretty much great, but i think we're not really in disagreeance about the facts insomuch as the sentiment. you say "these sadly are just a handful of examples" (emphasis mine), but i don't affix emotion to it like that. it is what it is. when you understand that the vast majority of extinction had nothing to do with us, the sadness can't stem from guilt because there's no involvement, and really no emotional stake to be taken anyways because it had nothing to do with us.
In every example above the species went extinct
directly due to human involvement. Whether the majority of life on the planet went extinct before us or not, it doesn't remove our personal responsibility for what we
do have control over. We have no control over the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs before we existed. Humans certainly have a choice over whether we pollute the habitat of the three-striped roofed turtle and keep harvesting it's eggs until it goes extinct.
Not having 100% accountability isn't the same as never being accountable as you seen to suggest with the words
when you understand that the vast majority of extinction had nothing to do with us, the sadness can't stem from guilt because there's no involvement, and really no emotional stake to be taken anyways because it had nothing to do with us.
If the black rhino goes extinct then it
will have something to do with us. Whether you like hearing it or not, it
will be our fault. The rhinos aren't cutting their own horns off and selling them.
and where's the rationale to focus in and give all this out-of-proportion coverage to what we have done? isn't that kinda selfish?
Giving any focus to how our activities can endanger wildlife is evidently "out-of-proportion coverage." The IPBES report that 1 million species are considered imperiled just came out weeks ago so it has only recently become part of the discussion.
Reporting concerns of the scientific community isn't selfish. The data is what it is. You are projecting. If any attitude is unhealthy it is the mentality of not caring if another million species die because of you when they do not have to, writing it off as not a concerning number.
Removing just 1 species from the equation can destabilize the environment because our ecosystem is a complex web, and one thread may not seem import until it goes missing. A perfect example of this is when the wolves were taken out of Yellowstone. There was no check and balance to the elks who leisurely ate the willows, aspen and cottonwood until the song birds ran out of habitats. The beavers didn't have enough trees to eat, leaving then nearly extinct until we reintroduced wolves into the population. The beaver dams are important to decrease bank erosion and collected the debris, benefitting the fish populations. It is is a domino effect.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ye...s-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem
It's dangerous to take a cavalier attitude that a million species more shouldn't make a difference.
My rationale is to give people information. Knowledge is empowering. The facts are there for everyone to do with as they choose. Nobody is forcing you to be part of a discussion about the environment if you don't want to hear it, but other people might read something they did not know, and find it informative. You are not the arbitrator of what topic is being given undue importance.
For you highlighting endangered species isn't helpful and makes you feel like humans are being shamed as the bad guys somehow, but to others it is opposite, it is a helpful dialogue than can be an opportunity to do good. If we did not give attention to wildlife that we hunted to extinction then we would not likely have tried to recover the wildlife we almost lost. If we didn't create an endangered species act then there would probably be no more grey and red wolves, bald eagles and grizzly bears in the United States.
https://www.allaboutwildlife.com/animals-saved-by-the-u-s-endangered-species-act
and another question: what does it mean to 'enjoy' the wildlife of this planet in the first place? most of mankind from history will tell you that's about sport, or petkeeping, or livestockery. we can easily draw a bunch of guilty conclusions from that stuff, but then the end goal is the problem!
If a species goes extinct then you won't have them as your food, sports, pets, livestock either If that is their only value to you. Even if you see wildlife as nothing more than your commodity, an effort to prevent their extinction protects your own interests. This is why you can find voices like Jiro Ono who is one of the most successful seafood chefs in the world involved in conservation efforts.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...fish-there-wont-be-any-sushi-left-by-2048/amp
I enjoy wildlife for their beauty and diversity. I apreciate how plants add color and a sense of serenity the environment, provide us with lower temperatures, medicinal value and food source, not to mention oxygen sense I enjoy living. I admire animals and enjoy learning about them and observing them for their majesty, and in many cases intelligence and complex social structures. Many different animals have been worshipped throughout history and provide significance to many different cultures.
Animals perform vital function from bees pollinating most of our crops to amphibians reducing the spread of diseases like malaria. We even train sea lions to monitor conditions under the sea for our research by outfitting them with special equipment. These are examples of what enjoying wildlife means to me
I don't really see what you're talking about.
The feeling was mutual when I read the statement below...
first of all, there is no jury to be out on the question of climate change. if there was, The Last Question would be answered before that jury returns. it's simply not how science works, it's never how science has worked, and it will never be how science works. science doesn't provide answers, it's not some Oracle of Truth.
climate change denial is a pretty pitiful strawman to erect against these kinds of things, because there are far stronger arguments against each and every thing you cited. carbon taxes are economically harebrained (ever taken a look at france?), carbon credits have been a disaster by results because everyone wants to buy the indulgence and no one is keeping track
There are successful examples of the carbon tax such. British Columbia phased in the carbon tax gradually, incrementally rather than suddenly like France did. That Canadian model is also revenue neutral, so people actually saw tax cuts from the carbon tax.
Sweden air pollution levels are half of the EU average and they have been using a Carbon tax for going on 30 years. They cut emissions by 9% in 10 years, and not only did emissions fall, economic growth rose. This was done alongside investment in renewable energy and incentivizing consumers to buy green cars through rebates.
A carbon tax is easier to implement where there is reliable public infastructure which people did not have in the rural areas of France. However, recent U.S legislation like the OFF Act include funding for mass transportation projects alongside the tax, providing a way to reduce carbon emissions, create jobs and save us money on the long run because public transportation would be cheaper than an automobile.
You said there are far stronger arguments against all of the examples I have given, but you only made 1, i.e no carbon tax it'll destroy the economy! I'd be interested to hear why you feel something as simple as not wearing fur is a totally unacceptable solution.
I would be open to considering other options if you don't like these, but you're not providing any. Supporting subsidies for green businesses? Protecting the Endangered Species Act? Buying food grown locally over imports? What is it you want besides us to stop talking about the environment? Which isn't gonna happen. All you're doing is saying no to every possible solution without having any alternatives in an attempt to shut down the conversation.
most importantly, have you taken a look at where most of the room for improvement is with carbon emissions? it's in asia, not here. The biggest contribution to CO2 is coming from automobiles, which are in heavy use in the US, China and Indonesia.
I live in the US actually, so unfortunately we have alwaye been one of the worst for cumulative Co2 emissions.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo.../climate-change-united-states-china-emissions
the biggest contribution to CO2 is coming from automobiles, which are in heavy use in the US, China and Indonesia. this leads us right back into the problem of "these attempts to solve it aren't working". isn't that infinitely more prevalent than whether some rando "believes" in it or not? we don't have to care at all whether humans are to blame for this to be interested in solving it.
The issues are linked. Why do you think Exxon Mobil suppressed information about climate science to the general public since the 70s? Because they feared a profit loss. They wanted us to keep our gas-guzzling automobiles so they could continue selling their fuel to a whole lotta "some rando" who don't know what is going on.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...limate-change-almost-40-years-ago/?redirect=1
what is science, then? it's a tool for reasoning, and it's currently the best we have for understanding the universe. science says precisely nothing about climate change; actually, scientists say things, and they're following everything that they have observed and reasoned about using the scientific method. crucially, they're not all on the same page about their work.
Actually no, almost all reputable scientists are on the same page regarding man-made climate. This is what NASA says on their website about the consensus in the scientic community about climate change, "97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
If you follow the links you will find a number of statements from organizations explaining their position on climate change.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
You can reject their conclusions, and say you believe the 3%, but you aren't providing any warrant for this position, just saying they may not be wrong just because they are in the minority. Okay, that is a starting point, but you haven't provided a single fact to make this case that the majority may have misinterpreted the data.
This is also not what you said previously. You asserted without any sources that 50% of scientists in the IPCC report were torn about whether climate change is man-made or not. They are not. You said that global warming was the minority opinion. It is not.
when you poll an aggregate of scientists, their answers don't constitute reality at all. there can be one scientist who found results differently, and we can't assume that he's wrong because a majority of his peers think so. that defeats the entire purpose of all the reasoning every single scientist did, reducing it to a vague mysticism that's as helpful as consulting the village seers about an omen. the moment that 'climate change' becomes unfalsifiable (undeniable, beyond reproach, sacred, gospel, et cetera) is the moment it becomes unscientific, and at that point you can send the IPCC report to the shredder because it doesn't help with that. science doesn't service beliefs.
What?!
You are the one who introduced last year's IPCC as evidence, it wasn't even part of this topic originally. It is going to the shredder now just because it didn't say what you believed it said.
