

Stop Trying to Save the Planet - edw519
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ftf-ellis-1/

======
alex_c
Something about this article really rubs me the wrong way, but I can't really
put it in words.

 _Think about that while enjoying a trip to your local zoo or arboretum — the
most biodiverse places that ever existed on Earth._

So biodiversity for its own sake is something to aspire to, rather than the
"artificial" notion of "natural"? (how's that for a paradox). Sure, these
animals aren't in the wild, they're just living miserable lives in enclosed
spaces, but hey, it's biodiversity and we made it, so we should embrace it,
right?

Taking that logic to the extreme, isn't _Spore_ the most biodiverse place that
ever existed on Earth? Sure, the creatures are actually virtual and don't
exist in a physical sense, but we created them, so shouldn't we embrace that
as our future?

I admit to not fully grasping the author's point... but I have the feeling
that I strongly disagree with it, whatever it is.

------
dkokelley
Not sure I agree 100% with the article, but here's a great line from it:
_Postnaturalism is not about recycling your garbage, it is about making
something good out of grandpa’s garbage and leaving the very best garbage for
your grandchildren_

------
ori_b
I think this covers it pretty well:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw>

"The planet isn't going anywhere. We are."

------
pj
There's a lot wrong with the article, I gave up reading it because it's mostly
fluff, including this part: _Current theory holds that prehistoric hunters
drove these species to extinction._

Here's a Nova episode that shows the human caused extinction hypothesis to be
inadequate, more likely it was an asteroid:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/clovis/>

Anyway, point is, humans can rationalize anything -- or even nothing.

------
pie
Sensational phrasing ("Nature is gone") gives way to a quick overview of
mankind's impact on the planet throughout history. I don't see much new here
in terms of either information or perspective.

~~~
jeremyw
What's new is a sense of managing our future comfort in a dispassionate and
guilt-free way. Focus on future humans not eco-morality (which is connected,
but not a necessary result.)

------
conflux0
This is a great example of what I don't want to read, or be convinced to read
by a semi-interesting title.

~~~
mapleoin
It's safe to read. The title is just misleading.

------
Tichy
So no matter what we do, things will be fine? Just like the free market
erasing poverty from the world? I am not convinced.

Sure, "nature" will probably survive one way or the other. But as an example,
what if I happen to LIKE whales? Is it wrong to be concerned about their
survival? I think not.

~~~
dualogy
Not to hijack, but can people stop implying a "free market" actually exists
anywhere in the world -- as long as there are governments, taxes and tolls, it
is just by definition not the case, regardless of your or my opinion on this
simple fact.

~~~
Tichy
It depends on the viewpoint, I guess. Isn't everything a free market in a way?
Like in communism, you can trade away as you want, as long as you are prepared
to pay for it (with the risk of being killed or whatever).

I am actually very much pro free market, but I still think it is dangerous to
assume that all things will just sort themselves out fine. They probably will
- to the satisfaction of somebody. That somebody might not be you (or us),
though.

------
paul9290
Greenland a longtime ago well was green. It's a cycle!

Global warming and blah blah blah equals big business and many people are
riding the wave of save the environment to riches; i.e. Al Gore.

It's uncool to say the above as the cool thing today is to be green; follow
the crowd, but I believe what I believe!

