2011-12-03, 03:53 AM
People speak as if not impacting the ecosystem is an option. We can either kill all the mosquitoes, or we won't, and nature will carry on in blessed harmony. This couldn't be further from the truth.
You want to talk about the butterfly effect? In that sense, the death of one organism affects the ecosystem similarly if its the last of its kind or one of billions.
This is not a question of intervening or not, you continuing to breathe intervenes on the level of the butterfly effect.
It's a question of intervening in a way that benefits humanity most instead of sitting on our hands and praying to gaia, as if that would prevent the earth from spinning, or from the state of species from continuing to change.
However, anything on an ecological level couldn't possibly be worse than the status quo as far as humanity is concerned. Say thousands of species die as a result, and some swamp turns into a desert - none of this compares with the millions who continue to die of these diseases.
Or are we going to start spending human lives on preserving some hypothetical swampland, in the absurdly unlikely chance that the death of this one species will destroy an entire ecosystem in an unforeseen manner? An ecosystem which, by the way, countless extinctions in the past did not destroy.
This is the environmentalist's dilemma. How many human lives are worth a tiger, or a tree, or a mosquito? Because it costs human lives to protect them, this might be the most poignant case of all for illustrating that point.
The answer to the environmentalist's dilemma is: you don't get to decide that you goddamn tree huggers. More power to the people defending their lives and the lives of other people.
You want to talk about the butterfly effect? In that sense, the death of one organism affects the ecosystem similarly if its the last of its kind or one of billions.
This is not a question of intervening or not, you continuing to breathe intervenes on the level of the butterfly effect.
It's a question of intervening in a way that benefits humanity most instead of sitting on our hands and praying to gaia, as if that would prevent the earth from spinning, or from the state of species from continuing to change.
Exidous Wrote:For once a species can die to benefit us. There is no consequence to wiping out these mosquitoes, forseen or unforseen, that is worse than the status quo.
ShinkuDragon Wrote:i can't even comment on this quote...Why not? Because I went so far as to say "or unforseen"? That's how severe I want my point to be. There is a cosmically minuscule chance that killing all the mosquitoes will set off a chain reaction in the universe that makes an asteroid hit Earth. There's your unforeseen negative consequence.
However, anything on an ecological level couldn't possibly be worse than the status quo as far as humanity is concerned. Say thousands of species die as a result, and some swamp turns into a desert - none of this compares with the millions who continue to die of these diseases.
Or are we going to start spending human lives on preserving some hypothetical swampland, in the absurdly unlikely chance that the death of this one species will destroy an entire ecosystem in an unforeseen manner? An ecosystem which, by the way, countless extinctions in the past did not destroy.
This is the environmentalist's dilemma. How many human lives are worth a tiger, or a tree, or a mosquito? Because it costs human lives to protect them, this might be the most poignant case of all for illustrating that point.
The answer to the environmentalist's dilemma is: you don't get to decide that you goddamn tree huggers. More power to the people defending their lives and the lives of other people.