I happened to come across your blog from my friend's twitter. I found this topic very interesting. But it does not convince me though. Here are several questions from me:
First, let's say the price you listed from the cost of intricate fencing for toirtoises rescue -"BrightSource also agreed to install 50 miles of intricate fencing, at a cost of up to $50,000 per mile, designed to prevent relocated tortoises from climbing or burrowing back into harm’s way."
My questions is (1) are these facilities only for tortoises or they can be efficiently multipurposed for all similar endangered species? (2)Would it be different if these facilities can be efficiently rebuilt and recycled for general society use?(3) Would it be different if these facilities/protocols can be applied to all land mammals rescue?
Second, "there is no significant difference between humans and other living thing’s impact on the environment". I think this argument does not stand at all and against all our previous understanding on impacts from human activity. Indeed plant/algae changed the world but in a much slower rate and human after industry revolution changed the world within very short amount of time. You might need to cite some classic references to prove for this argument. I think it is very far from truth.
Third, "The final argument for protecting endangered species and policing invasive ones is that this practice furthers human aims by keeping food chains stable." Hmmm ...... Well if you want to move to Mars and whatever you need to take with me are the things human need to basically survive. Unfortunately, earth is not for human being "food chain". Biodiversity is to show respect towards other animals and give them back their own space. And many animals, that we don't know, they have potential medical use and pharmaceutical applications, see American yew， paclitaxel. If you go to Bio Research, you'd know how many animals are under research to give clues on how lives are formed and how they can used by human. It is a gene treasury. Is it wise to dispose it before you don't know how to "quantify" the value because of insufficient knowledge?
Fourth, if you argue against the endangered animal rescue because of economical values. Following the same logic, should we stop rescuing homeless cats/dogs? What is the reason for rescuing them why just not let natural selection does the magic? How much we spent on these animals each year from the human society? Why cats/dogs are more important in biodiversity value or food chain stability? Why we should value pets more than wildlives just because pet industry makes more money than zoo? Why we should play the role of God and choose who to live based on our human's desire. Is this human-centered view correct?
Fifth, how much money we spent on giant panda, on kiwi, and Rhinopithecus？If you argue against protection of this specific tortoises and list out several generalized arguments. They seem to be are arguing against all endangered species we have so far tried to protect. Do you think we should cancel the all wild life protection acts? If not, what is the standard to choose what wild life deserve to live, what deserve to go extinction?
Sixth, imagine -- in one ideal situation that we have enough resources and enter a Utopia environment that everybody gets what they want(not economic concerns). Do you agree with spending resources in protecting wild life? If you agree -- and happy to support wild life. Now the question is, during economic crisis, why we should give up on wild life first? What about giving up cryptocurrency? What about pausing SpaceX? Which is more important? Wild lives or our internet speed or having folding screen phones?
Love your post. Healthy ecology doesn't necessarily mean an unimpacted environment. Plato (as per usual) remains correct. Our physical world is the "World of Becoming." It's in a constant state of change. We often conflate our metaphysical existence, the world of values and oughts, (the "World of Being") with the physical world. Hence the not-so-subtle quasi-religious subtext of the modern environmental movement.
I would urge you to dig a little deeper on the cost benefit analysis example of the solar farm. If you build 500 MW of unreliable solar power in the Mojave (where the sun also sets), with cutting- edge 500 Watt panels, you need 100K solar panels or 3,000 acres! A comparable footprint for a plant that runs in the dark (AKA peak energy) is 10-15 times smaller. Not sure where your interests lie, but I highly recommend this talk:
LOLed @ "I am talking, of course, about Ordovician Algae and the first trees that followed them."
Hi Maxwell,
I happened to come across your blog from my friend's twitter. I found this topic very interesting. But it does not convince me though. Here are several questions from me:
First, let's say the price you listed from the cost of intricate fencing for toirtoises rescue -"BrightSource also agreed to install 50 miles of intricate fencing, at a cost of up to $50,000 per mile, designed to prevent relocated tortoises from climbing or burrowing back into harm’s way."
My questions is (1) are these facilities only for tortoises or they can be efficiently multipurposed for all similar endangered species? (2)Would it be different if these facilities can be efficiently rebuilt and recycled for general society use?(3) Would it be different if these facilities/protocols can be applied to all land mammals rescue?
Second, "there is no significant difference between humans and other living thing’s impact on the environment". I think this argument does not stand at all and against all our previous understanding on impacts from human activity. Indeed plant/algae changed the world but in a much slower rate and human after industry revolution changed the world within very short amount of time. You might need to cite some classic references to prove for this argument. I think it is very far from truth.
Third, "The final argument for protecting endangered species and policing invasive ones is that this practice furthers human aims by keeping food chains stable." Hmmm ...... Well if you want to move to Mars and whatever you need to take with me are the things human need to basically survive. Unfortunately, earth is not for human being "food chain". Biodiversity is to show respect towards other animals and give them back their own space. And many animals, that we don't know, they have potential medical use and pharmaceutical applications, see American yew， paclitaxel. If you go to Bio Research, you'd know how many animals are under research to give clues on how lives are formed and how they can used by human. It is a gene treasury. Is it wise to dispose it before you don't know how to "quantify" the value because of insufficient knowledge?
Fourth, if you argue against the endangered animal rescue because of economical values. Following the same logic, should we stop rescuing homeless cats/dogs? What is the reason for rescuing them why just not let natural selection does the magic? How much we spent on these animals each year from the human society? Why cats/dogs are more important in biodiversity value or food chain stability? Why we should value pets more than wildlives just because pet industry makes more money than zoo? Why we should play the role of God and choose who to live based on our human's desire. Is this human-centered view correct?
Fifth, how much money we spent on giant panda, on kiwi, and Rhinopithecus？If you argue against protection of this specific tortoises and list out several generalized arguments. They seem to be are arguing against all endangered species we have so far tried to protect. Do you think we should cancel the all wild life protection acts? If not, what is the standard to choose what wild life deserve to live, what deserve to go extinction?
Sixth, imagine -- in one ideal situation that we have enough resources and enter a Utopia environment that everybody gets what they want(not economic concerns). Do you agree with spending resources in protecting wild life? If you agree -- and happy to support wild life. Now the question is, during economic crisis, why we should give up on wild life first? What about giving up cryptocurrency? What about pausing SpaceX? Which is more important? Wild lives or our internet speed or having folding screen phones?
Love your post. Healthy ecology doesn't necessarily mean an unimpacted environment. Plato (as per usual) remains correct. Our physical world is the "World of Becoming." It's in a constant state of change. We often conflate our metaphysical existence, the world of values and oughts, (the "World of Being") with the physical world. Hence the not-so-subtle quasi-religious subtext of the modern environmental movement.
I would urge you to dig a little deeper on the cost benefit analysis example of the solar farm. If you build 500 MW of unreliable solar power in the Mojave (where the sun also sets), with cutting- edge 500 Watt panels, you need 100K solar panels or 3,000 acres! A comparable footprint for a plant that runs in the dark (AKA peak energy) is 10-15 times smaller. Not sure where your interests lie, but I highly recommend this talk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GHihfiAvus&ab_channel=ImproveThePlanet
Found your blog via 1729 and subbed. (Balaji sent me some crypto for one of my response as well! https://www.undergrounddesigns.us/writing-discourse/chesterton-challenge-to-founders)
Anyway, great work, Max. You have a great future ahead of you, hopefully outside Academia :)
Thomas Jefferson would be proud.