Ecology for Ecology's Sake?

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-04-03 12:38pm

Let's assume that humanity has the capabilites to artificially synthesize enough food for everyone. Is there any particular reason beyond pure aesthetic appeal to try to maintain the world's natural ecology? If we progress to the point where we're totally independent of agriculture is there any ethical reason NOT to bulldoze Earth and build it into Coruscant with oceans?

kheegster · Post by **kheegster** » 2006-04-03 01:28pm

An off-the-cuff answer is that unless we've reached a point in biotech where we can cure any disease and fix any maladies, there are unknown plants in nature that may hold cures for cancer etc.

From a scientific point of view, ecology is interesting in a broad sense apart from its intrinsic interest. Think about it this way: there may not be anything useful in the Galapagos Islands, but how much is it worth towards mankind for inspiring Darwin towards the theory of evolutino?

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-04-03 01:39pm

Darth Raptor wrote:Let's assume that humanity has the capabilites to artificially synthesize enough food for everyone. Is there any particular reason beyond pure aesthetic appeal to try to maintain the world's natural ecology? If we progress to the point where we're totally independent of agriculture is there any ethical reason NOT to bulldoze Earth and build it into Coruscant with oceans?

Yes. The planet's ecosystems are also responsible for generating and regulating the atmosphere we breathe, and providing a small, but measurable climate-buffering effect. They also sink carbon and keep various minerals and chemicals biologically available. So unless you had some magical means of managing the services rendered by a healthy biosphere (which, according to the OP, you don't,) if you bulldoze everything, you wind up with a dead, barren planet in geologically short timescales.

TheBlackCat · Post by **TheBlackCat** » 2006-04-03 02:55pm

Yeah, that's been bothering me. Where, exactly does Coruscant get its oxygen?

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2006-04-03 03:21pm

TheBlackCat wrote:Yeah, that's been bothering me. Where, exactly does Coruscant get its oxygen?

Presumably Coruscant has technology in place to generate the correct gas mixture, and maintain it; either through recycling, or through imported raw materials. They've got the science and technology needed to completely build a planet-city kilometers deep. Presumably they've also got the technology necessary to provide the services normally provided by a natural ecology (as well as the mother of all climate regulation systems) . . . especially since the planet's population seems to have far exceeded a natural world's ability to carry it without collapsing and becoming a barren, uninhabitable rock in timespans exceeding the time it would take for such a collapse to become obvious.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-04-03 09:13pm

From a purely human standpoint (which I think is grossly irresponsible and arrogant, but I'll leave that aside for now), you are denying countless people pleasure. There are many people who derive enjoyment as well as inspiration from the natural world --not just for art and gobbeldy-gook poetry. Look at Newton --he apparently first considered gravity because of observing the natural world.

Also, there are biological systems yet to be discovered that have far more merit than food alone. Unfortunately, right now we're still in the tinkering phase, but a lot of work on genes that I have heard about uses gene splicing. Who is to know what genetic sequences we are destroying by razing the Earth? There's a lot out there that we're demolishing right now that could be of incalcuable worth. Also, as mentioned, there are medicines that are constantly being discovered in plants materials. What if they had not been tested for such properties and went extinct? We can easily lose something of incredible value simply by not caring beyond what our eyes immediately see. For a silly but humerous example, let's take Futurama. They got rid of all the little fish that go into making anchovies, and in the process lost a substance that was capable of oiling robots indefinitely with only a miniscule resource requirement! Too bad they're extinct, eh?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2006-04-03 09:17pm

From a distinctly insanely selfish standpoint, I personally like nature, and not just because it provides me with air to breathe and a burger to eat. Even the crazy-dangerous shit is at least interesting, and a lot of what we know of biology is incomplete. Observing the world to understand better the processes of evolution, and how ecosystems stabalize and destabalize and whatnot is all pretty interesting. So from a completely selfish viewpoint, keep nature around, because I like it.

If we're talking about an ethical standpoint, than that depends on which ethical philosophy you follow. Many versions of preference utility value animal preferences as well, which would mean that destroying the natural world for the hell of it would be incredibly ethically reprehensible.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2006-04-04 02:55am

Zero132132 wrote:If we're talking about an ethical standpoint, than that depends on which ethical philosophy you follow. Many versions of preference utility value animal preferences as well, which would mean that destroying the natural world for the hell of it would be incredibly ethically reprehensible.

quoted for truth.

The 99% of multicellular lifeforms on the planet that aren't us have at least some right to exist. We prioritize ourselves above them, of course, but that doesn't make it acceptable to exterminate them needlessly.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-04-04 08:35am

Seggybop wrote:The 99% of multicellular lifeforms on the planet that aren't us have at least some right to exist. We prioritize ourselves above them, of course, but that doesn't make it acceptable to exterminate them needlessly.

Aha. This is what I was looking for. It was my fault for not specifying in the OP that technology is also providing for pharmaceuticals, atmosphere and climate concerns. So if we've progressed to the point that we don't need nature to support ourselves, we're still obligated to sustain nature because it's life and although subordinate to human life must still be considered.

Okay, next question: Does it follow logically that if we have the capability and obligation to not destroy Earth's biomes that we should also work to preserve and improve them? I don't mean just refraining from strip mining the planet bare, I mean bringing all of life under our complete control in order to spare even the most insignificant insect undue suffering? Please note that human interests would not be hindered by doing this.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2006-04-04 08:58am

All life on the planet becoming a zoo seems like a pretty pathetic end for nature.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2006-04-04 10:35am

I wasn't aware that personal aesthetic preferences for violence and cruelty factored into ethical decision making. If it's immoral for us to inflict needless suffering on animals then surely it's immoral to let them inflict needless suffering on each other.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-04-04 12:02pm

I don't think making the Earth into an enormous city would be terribly great for mankind, in fact, being trapped in a city wherever you go, I would imagine would turn most people crazy after a while. We'd be putting humans in an environment totally divorced from the one we evolved from, and the "pure aesthetics" we get from that. I think that would have a bigger impact than you're giving it credit for.

I mean, why do you think people that are wealthy enough live in suburbia? I suspect turning the whole planet into a concrete jungle would have a severe impact on humanity's mental wellbeing. I honestly don't think we could cope with it.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2006-04-04 03:04pm

If we develop the means to sustain ourselves artificially, then I'd vote to move all of humanity underground and leave the surface to develop on it's own without our interferance.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2006-04-04 05:56pm

Assuming we could get birthrates under control, and dodge mass economic chaos in the Developing World, I would think the reverse of ecological destruction would take place; you could leave a lot of the land to fallow, especially if most of the population moved to the cities (as they almost certainly would after their farms became irrelevant, assuming the synthesized food is ultra cheap).

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-04-04 08:58pm

Darth Raptor wrote:I wasn't aware that personal aesthetic preferences for violence and cruelty factored into ethical decision making. If it's immoral for us to inflict needless suffering on animals then surely it's immoral to let them inflict needless suffering on each other.

Beings without sentience aren't immoral, they simply are.

Enola Straight · Post by **Enola Straight** » 2006-04-05 09:32pm

Preserving nature?

If we aren' allowed to use it, and neither are our decendants, than whoare we saving it for?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ecology for Ecology's Sake?

Ecology for Ecology's Sake?

Re: Ecology for Ecology's Sake?