Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
We Destroy Nature; Really.
Topic Started: May 13 2012, 01:33 PM (2,156 Views)
Spugpow
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
That may be the way you feel, Parasky, but it isn't exactly an unassailable position the way you make it out to be. It almost smacks of victim blaming, really.

Those of us who love nature (and speculate about it :) ) would prefer not to have to wait a hundred million years for a new ecosystem to arise after having destroyed the one we have now.

[LINK REMOVED]
Edited by Parasky, May 13 2012, 09:24 PM.
My deviantart page: http://amnioticoef.deviantart.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trex841
Member Avatar
Entity
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I can't stand all the preaching commercials about saving the world and all that PR stuff. I already give charity money, so all your commercial is doing now is HERTING MY SOUL!!!

Spoiler: click to toggle
F.I.N.D.R Field Incident Logs
A comprehensive list of all organisms, artifacts, and alternative worlds encountered by the foundation team.

At the present time, concepts within are inconsistent and ever shifting.

(And this is just the spec related stuff)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I re-read Parasky's comment with Guile's theme in the back ground. And IT. WAS. AWESOME.

Spoiler: click to toggle
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


Parasky went first, so I'll cut loose too.

I don't like this attitude either. It seems so self congratulatory and pointless. Humans have wiped out several species, endangered many others and damaged most ecosystems in one way or another. So? Go do something about it!

Like donate to here!
http://www.tigertrust.info/sumatran_tiger_help.asp
Edited by lamna, May 13 2012, 04:47 PM.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I find it very annoying that humanity's interactions with the rest of Earth has been defined by the philosophy of being seperate from nature. It is found in either of two flavours;

1. Humanity is superior and we can rightfully destroy whatever organisms or ecosystems we want (or worse, we should destroy those organisms/ecosystems).


2. Humanity is inferior to the natural world, is a destructive cancer or a 'disease of life', Earth would be better off without us, and we should go extinct (some people, unfortunately, do actually believe in this philosophy).

The problem is, usually when influential people do something- perform developments, access resources, they more or less adhere to philosophy #1. And some of the most vocal people calling for the protection of the natural world adhere to philosophy #2- thus leading to an unfortunate association of environmental causes with the latter philosophy of "humanity is evil", or worse, that the only alternative to philosophy #1 is philosophy #2. Essentially, misanthropy versus anthropocentrism.

Of course, in this whole debate the idea of humans being a part of Earth's ecosystem- and thus no less valuable than it as well as requiring the value of its continued wellbeing- seems to be missed out. And frankly I don't wonder why, because both sides are wrong.

I also find it particularly annoying that many people focus on how supposedly 'evil' western industrial societies are, while practically deifying indigenous peoples/peoples who practice hunter-gathering (or who practiced it fairly recently in history) as "closer to nature" and "in tune with the Earth".

This is complete and utter nonsense, of course, because a hunter-gatherer lifestyle does not infer a heightened ecological consciousness. The ancestors of pretty much all of humanity (minus ethnic Africans, more or less- the animals they shared their environment were adapted to human presence)- hunter gatherers- caused mass extinctions of most megafauna in pretty much every new environment they entered. Those people were no more "in tune with the Earth" than we are, nor were they evil- they simply did not know better that their actions could have such an effect.

So from the perspective of non-African megafauna, Earth is a shadow of its former self. From the viewpoint of someone acquainted with Earth as it was a few tens of thousands of years ago, Gaia's Lament would be enforced.

But I doubt humanity would sterilize the Earth. If we decide to disregard the biosphere, that doesn't mean we'll be intent on wrecking it- it's just that farms and other developments will increasingly encroach on natural habitats, until all life on Earth (or on land, at least) either lives in association with humans (either domesticated or as a form of commensalism) or in places we couldn't be bothered with (like the Antarctic ice sheet).

Quote:
 
They were unfit for survival in the rapidly changing world and they paid the price for it.


And if some creature living today goes extinct, does that it "unfit for survival in a rapidly changing world"? Call me idealistic, but this stuff has a lot of value for me in terms of history and heritage- I'd much rather live in a world where my ancestors hadn't killed off things like the Mammoth.

Extinction is a bad thing, because if it isn't forever, it's extremely difficult to fix.

Quote:
 
And they also fail to realize that without the very industry they are complaining about we would be unable to do all the great things we have done to restore nature.


I would imagine there would be better examples of that than planting trees though, there's a lot more to restoring nature than planting trees (unless you're in a heavily deforested area, in which case reforestation is the first step). I definitely agree with you- industry and advanced technology can be instrumental in maintaining or restoring the health of ecosystems. Mechanised farming is far more efficient than previous methods of acquiring food, and efficiency means less environmental impact...

Quote:
 
And I'm sure as hell not going to live in a hut made of dung and mud because "it doesn't hurt the planet."


Nonsense! A hut made of mud? How dare you collect mud! You'll be defiling the Earth!!!

:rolleyes:

:lol:
Edited by T.Neo, May 13 2012, 04:55 PM.
A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


I'm going to have to agree with all of that. You don't respond to a crazy vegan by eating half a dozen live mice, and you don't respond to eco-pessimism by saying the dodos were asking for it, the sluts.
Edited by lamna, May 13 2012, 05:07 PM.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spugpow
Member Avatar
Prime Specimen
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I don't know if humans wouldn't wipe just about all animals off the planet. With all the charismatic megafauna gone, the average person will lose much of their connection to the natural world. As things get more degraded and the only animals flourishing are pests, environmental protection may begin to seem less and less worthwhile, especially if our society is struggling to stay afloat (due to having destroyed the environment--irony).
My deviantart page: http://amnioticoef.deviantart.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
But Spug, wiping out everything is not, and never has been the intention of humanity- and probably wouldn't be even if attitudes toward the environment became appallingly apathetic.

After all, there are plenty of animals that live well in and around human settlements- various bird, rodent species, etc. They may be pests at points, but that isn't always the case, so there's probably not cause to exterminate them outright. In addition, plant species are often found within and around human settlements; they're often planted and maintained there by humans (Johannesburg is host to six million trees, a sort of 'artificial forest' in the bushveld).

In addition, Earth is a big place, so if there's space that isn't occupied by human developments, there's bound to be some life there (though it depends on the land in question, some areas are quite barren, like deserts). Cut down a section of rainforest, leave it for a suitable amount of time, the forest will regrow and reclaim the land- simply because that is prime land for rainforest growth! In this case, nature does abhor a vacuum. The same goes for environments all over the world- you don't have to look far to find pioneer plants growing through cracks in sideways and roads. Only continued human activity prevents our structures and cleared land from being overgrown and reclaimed.

The issue with deforestation isn't that forests can't grow back, it's that a new forest isn't the same as an old one- old growth forests, or "ancient woodland" are a mature and unique ecosystem that contains a lot of biodiversity.

Of course how human activities affect the ecosystem depend on what exactly occurs- for example, you could imagine a scenario where humanity becomes totally independant, resource and food wise, from natural environments, and continues to grow and develop allmost all land on Earth. Or you could imagine a scenario where humanity is idiotic, and remains reliant on Earth's environment- and collapses before it can destroy all life (albeit in a way that the collapse itself would be heavily damaging to life on Earth).

The issue isn't Earth life itself being eradicated, it's biodiversity being damaged to the point where life is seriously boring. Earth with all the good stuff sucked out.

Diet Earth.
Edited by T.Neo, May 13 2012, 08:46 PM.
A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ànraich
Member Avatar
L'évolution Spéculative est moi

Spugpow
May 13 2012, 04:29 PM
That may be the way you feel, Parasky, but it isn't exactly an unassailable position the way you make it out to be. It almost smacks of victim blaming, really.

Those of us who love nature (and speculate about it :) ) would prefer not to have to wait a hundred million years for a new ecosystem to arise after having destroyed the one we have now.

Once again, we don't destroy the ecosystem anymore than any one part of the ecosystem destroys the rest of it. We affect it more directly than any other species, for sure, but I fail to see the difference between a natural occurrence wiping out a species and humanity's actions wiping them out. I don't think you are understanding that the mere existence of human beings affects the ecosystem negatively. Our technology really has nothing to do with it. Human beings are defined by the fact that we alter the environment around us to suit our needs. You shouldn't talk about things you don't fully grasp. Again, we have the right to do what we need to in order to ensure the survival and comfort of our species. That is our right as a species. Sometimes it results in the extinction of other species, but that will happen either way. Not all species are compatible, in order for one to survive the other must sometimes inevitably be wiped out. That's nature.

And no links to Avaaz. Speculative Evolution does not associate itself with corrupt websites that sell email addresses to advertisers.
We should all aspire to die surrounded by our dearest friends. Just like Julius Caesar.

"The Lord Universe said: 'The same fate I have given to all things from stones to stars, that one day they shall become naught but memories aloft upon the winds of time. From dust all was born, and to dust all shall return.' He then looked upon His greatest creation, life, and pitied them, for unlike stars and stones they would soon learn of this fate and despair in the futility of their own existence. And so the Lord Universe decided to give life two gifts to save them from this despair. The first of these gifts was the soul, that life might more readily accept their fate, and the second was fear, that they might in time learn to avoid it altogether." - Excerpt from a Chanagwan creation myth, Legends and Folklore of the Planet Ghar, collected and published by Yieju Bai'an, explorer from the Celestial Commonwealth of Qonming

Tree That Owns Itself
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Neo, stop your bitching about your ancestors. Those same ancestors gave ride to those Chinese and Korean scientists working on reviving the mammoth.

You should be grateful for having ancestors create the setup for the greatest undertaking in biology. Unextiction.

And if the baby dies before it can be cloned, Re-extinction.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ànraich
Member Avatar
L'évolution Spéculative est moi

Cloning a single mammoth won't revive the species. It will allow us to study them, and hopefully bring us sweet, sweet mammoth burgers, but it will never restore the species. You can only create the one mammoth. Over and over and over again, but the same mammoth, regardless. Plus a clone only lives a few years, tops. And one cloned from the ancient DNA of long dead megafauna will probably be cancer ridden and live only days to months.
We should all aspire to die surrounded by our dearest friends. Just like Julius Caesar.

"The Lord Universe said: 'The same fate I have given to all things from stones to stars, that one day they shall become naught but memories aloft upon the winds of time. From dust all was born, and to dust all shall return.' He then looked upon His greatest creation, life, and pitied them, for unlike stars and stones they would soon learn of this fate and despair in the futility of their own existence. And so the Lord Universe decided to give life two gifts to save them from this despair. The first of these gifts was the soul, that life might more readily accept their fate, and the second was fear, that they might in time learn to avoid it altogether." - Excerpt from a Chanagwan creation myth, Legends and Folklore of the Planet Ghar, collected and published by Yieju Bai'an, explorer from the Celestial Commonwealth of Qonming

Tree That Owns Itself
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colddigger
Member Avatar
Joke's over! Love, Parasky
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Sure it does!

That last tasmanian tiger dying set the extinction of the species, it wasn't extinct prior.
Oh Fine.

Oh hi you! Why don't you go check out the finery that is SGP??

v Don't click v
Spoiler: click to toggle

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seascorpion
Member Avatar
Why Can't I Hold All These Mongols?

Seriously? This is a weird thread. I'm unsure whether everyone wants to fuck biodiversity over or preserve it or some other option.
I mean what's with the raging at environmentalist concerns, some people think human beings are a plague on nature... Who gives a fuck? I prefer those people because they actually seem to care about conservation, nearly everyone besides them doesn't give a shit about it. I would rather side with a wolfaboo or voluntary human extinction people than some idiotic Chinese businessman who believes tiger penis will cure cancer. Honestly, I don't care if we're part of nature, I would rather live in a world where the environmental degradation we see today wasn't happening, especially for the retarded reasons that it is.
It's retarded that we still have greenhouse gas emissions despite the fact that as a species we are more than intelligent to move past technology that produces them

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colddigger
Member Avatar
Joke's over! Love, Parasky
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Dude you mean tiger penis DOESN'T cure cancer??
Oh Fine.

Oh hi you! Why don't you go check out the finery that is SGP??

v Don't click v
Spoiler: click to toggle

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
trex841
Member Avatar
Entity
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
if my memory is correct, parasky, the clone mammoth would be 1/2 elephant anyway.

also parasky...
Spoiler: click to toggle
F.I.N.D.R Field Incident Logs
A comprehensive list of all organisms, artifacts, and alternative worlds encountered by the foundation team.

At the present time, concepts within are inconsistent and ever shifting.

(And this is just the spec related stuff)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply