• 4 Posts
  • 89 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: August 7th, 2023
  • tired_lemming@sh.itjust.workstoSuperbowl@lemmy.world•Article Discussion: Hoot owl biology and the U.S. government
    2·
    2 days ago

    Yeah. If something doesn’t seem to be working to stated goals, you should tweak the method not throw up your hands and give up. Conservation efforts can and do bear fruit with painstaking effort. Might seem like rolling that stone uphill endlessly but it’s the job.

    As you point out, there has already been an immense impact caused by humans. Like irreversible that’s gone forever impact. We’re already stuck in damage control and frankly should hold on to every inch we can. I scoff at carbon neutral propaganda and we plant a tree for every one we cut stuff a lot because often it’s just greenwashing. Trees take decades to grow. Forests take centuries to mature. That doesn’t go away with you planting random saplings. Sometimes those are even non native saplings. And that’s not even considering the amount of animals chased away from clearing the areas in the first place. Those don’t just come back like a video game if you plant the trees.

    Also doctors and nurses can be anti-vaxxers. Basically, there are no jobs or professions free from the fact that there have always been dumb humans. Credentials just mean someone managed to pass the exams. Nothing more nothing less.

    As a whole I still have hope for the human race but boy are we a self defeating species at times.

  • tired_lemming@sh.itjust.workstoSuperbowl@lemmy.world•Article Discussion: Hoot owl biology and the U.S. government
    2·
    2 days ago

    Erm, the whole article just seems like propaganda to argue for the rights of polluting industries. It feels very “won’t anyone think of the billionaries” in tone.

    Humans have not stopped the devastating environmental damage they have been causing. There is no more natural selection in the environment. Not that the process doesn’t still happen. But it’s in no way ‘natural’ because humans have changed the environments so drastically everything else just limps to catch up.

    It also reminds me of like rabbits released in Australia causing major problems. And deer running wild in America because there’s no apex predators to keep the population down. Humans caused the issues and now interventions are mitigation because they can’t do anything about it.

    Also reads like “what we’re doing isn’t working so obviously it’s wrong and we should just throw our hands up”. Like oil executives saying we’re never gonna be able to clean up the environment so why bother. And plz don’t jail me kthx.

    The only thing I’m willing to concede is the species thing because I’m not familiar with species classification. Is this closer to breeds of dogs or wolves and dogs? Some breeds of dogs have gone extinct with time but humans did actively design breeds. I would argue wolves are a seperate species though despite cross breeding possibilities. There’s more to it than just being able to successfully breed imho. (Also the fact that he decided on a completely racist analogy when even within the article he had so many better options makes me give the side eye. Like he just wanted an avenue to say this racist thing and couch it in ‘science’.)

    I think that’s why this article makes you so uncomfortable. It’s using the veneer of science to argue for a point rather than proving via data. Kinda like flat earthers using the scientific method to try to prove the Earth is flat but the proof isn’t there but they somehow argue it totally was proof to them. Lots of convincing words and language but nothing of substance beyond listen to me. Bunch of woe is me in there too.

    Anyway, that’s just my layman rambling. I support conservation efforts because my view is that humans are the ones that fucked up the environment and have the responsibility to save as many animals as possible. If you want to start arguing feasibility and profitability we’re in a different conversation.