DaveC426913 said:
We know that we cannot control the ecosystems of the planet...
Well that's clearly not true: if environmentalists want to claim we can "destroy" an ecosystem then they
must acknowledge that we most certainly
can control it! That's the ultimate control!
And stepping back from that obvoius logic, it isn't difficult to see that most of our interactions with the natural world are about exerting control over it. Ie:
...we're going to have to ensure they can manage on their own as much as possible, lest the whole food chain deck of cards comes crashing down. For that reason, the best philosophy is to try to disrupt it as little as possible.
That's unrealistic. Humans have a huge impact on the ecosystem and it is impossible to get around that. So we need to manage (control) what that effect is. In some cases, that means accepting wiping-out entire ecosystems over hundreds of square miles because we have located cities there. In other cases, it means completely changing the ecosystem of millions of square miles to turn it into farmland. We're re-making the ecosystems of the world to meet our needs.
We've had an
enormous impact on our natural world, but it still services us just fine. We're not anywhere close to turning the Earth into a lifeless brown rock. Suggesting we are headed in that direction with our eating practices is just chicken-littleism. There are only two possible ways I know of we could do that: nuclear war and a runaway greenhouse effect.
Extinction is likely to have far-reaching deleterious effects - not just on the planet in general, but upon us directly.
Lots of species become extinct, whether because of humans or not. They may or may not have harmful effects on natural ecosystems or the needs of humans. So what I'm saying is that we need to
manage (control) our impact on our environment not just to avoid deleterious effects but to go a step further and
re-make the natural world to service us. And I know those words will make some vomit on their keyboards, but people can't be naive about this. Being able to manipulate our environment like no other animal can is a big part of what makes us different from other animals and what has allowed us to become what we are today. It's not a flaw in humanity, but an attribute that has played a huge role in enabling our current state of development.
I'm not completely devoid of sentiment - I liked Yosemite and I've been whale watching and that's really cool too. But I've seen little from most environmentalists that implies that their cause has much basis beyond sentimentality/emotion. Certainly, these whale-wars guys are driven by emotion over logic. I'd respect the cause more if they'd just acknowledge it. If I had to vote tomorrow on whether to keep Yosemite around, I'd say yes - but I'd do it because I think it is pretty, not because I think it really matters if we turn it into a million square miles of blacktop.
Whales are pretty/magestic. Is that a good enough reason not to make them extinct? Ehh, maybe. But the Hindus also think cows are sacred and we disagree so we eat them. I'm not inclined to tell the Japanese that they can't eat a whale (or sell its oil or whatever) because I think they are pretty. It's just not a good enough reason.
