John o'Sullivan
Well-known member
Labradorduck. Very good point.
very complex answer required to address it fully.
Simple answer is the converse of your reply. Why are conservationists so anti "invasive" species that "threaten" "native" species (unnatural) but "delighted" when species change distiribution due to global warming (unnatural).
Why do conservationists act as if a mystery why a range of northern species are dying out in Britain at the same time as southern species are arriving?
Why do they continue to spend money attempting to shore up the population of said species when that "conservation dollar" could be used elsewhere in a more sympathetic way (to overall processes).
I have a range of explanations for this myself but was asking the question to others.
As you know I believe we are natural and therefore our actions are natural.
One of the cognitive distortions that is prevalent in the conservation world is that natural is good. Therefore I repeatedly get people thinking that when I say something is natural it is implicit in that statement that I think it is good. This is not my position at all.
One of the simplistic factors that is used to determine what should be culled is "it's not natural" (Mandarin Duck in UK) and it is competing with Goldeneye (natural) therefore it might need to be killed in order to support the population of goldeneye.
Once you accept that everything is natural you lose this simplistic distinction and your "justifiable arguments" become less sustainable.
In terms of climate change I am confident that climate change in the long term is irrelevant to the evolutionary process. Some species of some description will survive some-where and these species will provide the genetic heritage that will drive the continuation of the process.
I'm more concerned in the short term 50-100 years with population growth, demand for food and other production needs, how this is affected by climate change and our over all relationship with the rest of the natural world.
If we only had climate change to deal with I'd be a lot happier but we don't we have a range of huge issues to deal with.
very complex answer required to address it fully.
Simple answer is the converse of your reply. Why are conservationists so anti "invasive" species that "threaten" "native" species (unnatural) but "delighted" when species change distiribution due to global warming (unnatural).
Why do conservationists act as if a mystery why a range of northern species are dying out in Britain at the same time as southern species are arriving?
Why do they continue to spend money attempting to shore up the population of said species when that "conservation dollar" could be used elsewhere in a more sympathetic way (to overall processes).
I have a range of explanations for this myself but was asking the question to others.
As you know I believe we are natural and therefore our actions are natural.
One of the cognitive distortions that is prevalent in the conservation world is that natural is good. Therefore I repeatedly get people thinking that when I say something is natural it is implicit in that statement that I think it is good. This is not my position at all.
One of the simplistic factors that is used to determine what should be culled is "it's not natural" (Mandarin Duck in UK) and it is competing with Goldeneye (natural) therefore it might need to be killed in order to support the population of goldeneye.
Once you accept that everything is natural you lose this simplistic distinction and your "justifiable arguments" become less sustainable.
In terms of climate change I am confident that climate change in the long term is irrelevant to the evolutionary process. Some species of some description will survive some-where and these species will provide the genetic heritage that will drive the continuation of the process.
I'm more concerned in the short term 50-100 years with population growth, demand for food and other production needs, how this is affected by climate change and our over all relationship with the rest of the natural world.
If we only had climate change to deal with I'd be a lot happier but we don't we have a range of huge issues to deal with.
Last edited:
