What do you think the biggest human related threats to biodiversity are?

‘colonising deserts’ as @nemo10000 suggested, would add an additional layer of destroying delicate and diverse habitat in favour of … even more people, needing desalinated sea or ground water.

2 Likes

@marina_gorbunova That’s the point. In real life taxon don’t matter so much, only individuals. Taxa is a tool to describe biodiveristy, species subspecies etc., are just models. thus we can divide organisms into species, subspecies, races, forms and varieties, etc. etc, but if we want to protect taxa, we will always miss something, so when thinking about protection, I think about a space where life can develop freely, and not about saving species that cannot adapt. Moreover, if one species goes extinct, a new species will emerge in the empty ecological niche. Therefore, the goal as you wrote “not to kill species / taxa” is not for me.
@dianastuder I never said it should be done. The point is, people like to be crowded and there is a free place.

Some of you are writing here about how much people are pests and that it would be best if there were fewer of us (the forced castration of Uighurs in China is pro-environmental in this regard). The only real view of environmental protection is anthropocentrism. What @neutral wrote sounds nice, but anyone can say “No It hasn’t” and the discussion is over. Try to say to someone “Hey you should die as soon as possible and not have children because in 150 years there will be no forests in the Amazon” it doesn’t seem to appeal to anyone. But if you say, “Hey, take care of the environment, thanks to that your children will have a better life”, then a mature person is unlikely to answer, “So what?”

It may be not for you, but you answered to my point of view which this topic is about, telling what we all think, and I shouldn’t prove what I think is right or wrong, it’s my own opinion.

2 Likes

Assuming that I’m suggesting people should die young and childless because I see inherent value in nature conservation is a pretty big stretch, is it not?

2 Likes

habitat loss unless you can wrap that under ‘colonialism’

That is linear neo-Darwinian thinking, and does not reflect the messiness of life. In this discussion, nothing has emerged to fill the niche vacated by the Parakeets:
Carolina Parakeet; are non-native parakeets filling this niche? - Nature Talk - iNaturalist Community Forum
In reality, humans have no idea what will happen if species go extinct. If the clearing of rainforests stops today, and the agricultural land left alone, what would re-inhabit that land?
While I can see your points, I do not think humans have to moral right to destroy habitats and biodiversity just because we want big houses with pools and nice big lawns. Especially since we have a chance to halt and regroup. Especially in the rich world - the environmental impact of a subsistence farm in a poor nation is minimal compared to the acquisitive consumption in rich nations.

4 Likes

well, i would argue that niche no longer exists anyway

1 Like

Agree on that. The niche was basically eliminated by humans.

1 Like

Ooooh, I hate the word Colonialism! My dislike is both intellectual and personal (long story). It is overused today, and is a convenient explanation for the ills of Indigenous peoples. Humanity has been colonising other places since the year dot. The Huns colonised large parts of eastern Europe, as did the Romans, the Magyars, the Germanic peoples etc. But this a completely separate conversation!

2 Likes

It is, sorry if You felt offended. I see that value too, I’m just angry on eco-misanthropy.

2 Likes

right, colonialism extends beyond just one culture, it’s a theme that has popped up multiple times in human existence. But gonna leave it at that because i don’t think a conversation with you (or anyone else here) about this is going to go well.

2 Likes

I think it would go fine - I like and respect you. I’m not dismissing the effects of colonisation, nor do I want to. It’s just such a minefield that I don’t think we should go any further!

3 Likes

Maybe not fill yet. But you have right that it is more complicated. And about morality, I am the last person which want to destroy environment just to have a pool, but I want to expand the perspectives in disscution.

1 Like

Then clearly, there are an awful lot of immature people.

As an earlier comment alluded, one of the “other” choices is anthropocentrism. And when I use that term, I mean it this way: Maybe you have seen the images or narratives about “if evolutionary history was a 24-hour clock, humans came along at 2 minutes to midnight.” Well, if it was entirely honest, that last sentence would continue as “…and immediately demanded that everyone else pay for the privilege of being there.”

The sheer, unabashed arrogance. Being the last to show up at a party, and insisting that everyone else present pay you a door charge. Yet even environmentalists are guilty of this, when we speak of making environmental protection economically advantageous or feasible.

Still, I chose land clearing, along with climate change. In one of the Greta Thunberg fan groups on Facebook, someone suggested that kids should learn foraging in school. Well, it sounds good; but as a forager, I see a deep problem with it. I know all the plants mentioned in Euell Gibbons’ trilogy, but I have never been able to assemble a foraged meal like the ones he describes. I think it is simply because I live several decades later than he did; when every remaining fragment of habitat is either a park where foraging is prohibited, or posted No Trespassing, what good is it to know how to forage? I really think the United States needs a Right to Roam law like Scotland has, but our gun worshippers will never let that happen.

2 Likes

i agree. traditional foraging has always come with stewardship of the land (or when it hasn’t, that culture went away). Not necessarily ‘ownership’ in the current sense in many places but, if you are going to take, you give back, be a part of managing and stewarding and protecting the land. If you just roam through a protected area removing things, you’re just another ecosystem stressor.

4 Likes

I agree, kids should learn more about environment about them, but it shouldn’t be in a consumption way, especially if it’s not something they’ll be able to actually use, one of things kids are never taught in school is that actually other organisms are not there to play some role for human life, there’s no good and bad insects, useful plants and weeds, sadly that’s how things are presented, with that in mind it’s not hard to see why humanity is like it is now, people mostly think in terms of what to use and what to exterminate so it doesn’t interfere with using of something else.

6 Likes

I see overpopulation and most people not knowing how their actions impact the environment over all. (The difference between wants and needs,) at the base of this situation.

5 Likes

Talking about biodiversity.
Adding to All of the above. Pets. Especially cats, especially feral cats and dogs. And spreading other invasive species via pets, travel and good intentions gone wrong. Also throw on there light and noise pollution are huge ones. And anything to do with the automobile really.

I am also of the opinion we are currently far past human carrying capacity on this planet given the state of things. It’s pretty obvious when you look at the rate of global freshwater aquifers disappearing and the farmland situation. Throw on there intensifying weather and natural disasters.
Then you also just have a higher density of people living together than is good for healthy human well-being and quality of life with so much noise pollution, light pollution, air, water, mixed up misunderstanding each other’s cultures.
The competition over finite resources to feed our economic systems with this many humans causes friction and if not physical violent wars of the past, psychological wars, cyber wars, economic wars and wars of manipulation and oppression.
PS: I’m not here to debate any of this. Just posting my experiential based opinions.

3 Likes

I’ve never heard it put that way, but yes!
As for making environmental protection economically advantageous, that seems to be all that counts these days. The “Economy”, whatever that is. Reluctantly I think that is the only means of preserving whatever we have left - make things ‘economically’ important. A small example - in Winnipeg, where I live, in places along the Red River the city is allowing ‘natural regeneration’. It’s great, but the reason is riverbank erosion, which costs money to stop. So let the plants do it for you. At least it provides extra habitat.

3 Likes