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
Naturalism vs Post-naturalism
Topic Started: Apr 11 2016, 11:13 AM (4,224 Views)
Sheather
Member Avatar


I think that in a perfect world we would have been able to find some more sustainable balance with the natural world sooner than we did with a less catastrophic impact on the biosphere. However, we didn't, and while we might still one day it's already going to be too late for a lot of biodiversity, so I think the best thing we can do from this point on is not to try and act like we could still ever restore the planet to a primordial state. That's already not possible with the degree of alteration we've done to the planet. It's really not realistic to try and save such animals as red wolves, some sort of of critically endangered fish that can only survive in a single hot spring, or a specific subspecies of anything with just a few individuals left anymore. We should instead focus not on completely restoring the historic biosphere but allowing a new, functional one to reform that can survive more effectively alongside humans, since we're not going anywhere. Red wolves have a very hard time coexisting with humans and are entirely conservation dependent, but the hybrid coyote of the Eastern US does so readily and survives in spite of us, not because of us. Both animals fill the same basic niche. It's obvious which one is better adapted to this new world we've made. I think we should focus on conservation efforts that still show some chance of doing any good rather than hyper-specific efforts with animals that cannot conceivably survive any longer without complete human interference, and that have more readily adaptable analogues.

Similar arguments have already been discussed, for example Britain's grey squirrels. I agree, I think it's the realistic choice to let the gray squirrel displace the red one. I feel similarly about house sparrows and starlings wherever they're introduced. At this point there is no realistic way they could be eradicated. Their effect on their native competitors can only be slowed, not stopped, by small-scale culling efforts, which is why I feel these are a total waste of time and energy. Eventually the starlings are going to win. They're simply more efficient in their environment than bluebirds and martins. In time - indeed it's already occurring - they'll find their own stable niche in the ecosystem. Everglades pythons are another good example. Though they eat everything, they haven't so far proven catastrophic to any major native populations. The environment is adapting. I think we should let it do so more often rather than constantly trying to interfere, cull the invasives no matter how futile the efforts are, and try to act like we could ever return the planet to its pre-human state. Yes, it's sad that we're going to lose that one rhino subspecies which is down to a couple of sterile individuals and that most of the surviving lions and tigers are mixed subspecies. I don't think that this should be taken as negatively as it is, though - homogenized animals are better than extinct ones - given a chance, they'll quickly diversify again if ever they have the opportunity. A tiger is always a tiger, just a little bigger or a little smaller. They do the same thing. If it's down to preserving two highly inbred pure subspecies in two dwindling gene pools or combining them to improve the total population I think we should always do the latter, even if the animals all become slightly less unique in the process.



Posted Image
The Gaiaverse

| Eden | Terra Metropolis | Life of the Sylvan Islands |


Other Spec Evo

| Sheatheria | Serina | The Last Dinosaur

A Wholesome and Good Thing

| Sam |
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flisch
Member Avatar
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Dr. Legend
Apr 11 2016, 05:31 PM
What is "natural" exactly? When a herd of dinosaurs destroys an entire forest per day, that is natural. When humans do it, it is considered unnatural. Are humans not part of nature?
Definitions vary, but the most sensible definition would be "Everything that is consciously created or changed by humans is unnatural." (You could probably extend it to other sophonts, but right now this version does suffice.)

So, yes, a herd of dinosaurs trampling down a forest is natural. A group of humans chopping down a forest is not. The words "nature" and "artificial" literally only exist to bring up a distinction between humans and the rest of the world. You could replace them with "untouched by humans" and "manmade" respectively, but that'd be a mouthful.

To answer your question: Humans are part of nature, but not their creations.




Some food for thought:

What we experience right now is a snapshot of the world around us. Tigers haven't been around since always. Neither did pandas, nor whales. The composition of life and the biosphere is constantly shifting. Attempting to preserve the world in its current state for the sake of keeping it like that is not only futile but naive.
We have a discord. If you want to join, simply message me, Icthyander or Sphenodon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Legend
Newborn
 *  *  *
I agree, but it probably wouldn't be harmful to save most endangered species from going extinct. Just for entertainment. I mean, imagine if there were still a few dinosaurs around.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Holben
Member Avatar
Rumbo a la Victoria

I think I'm pretty much obliged to say "aha, but dinosaurs are still all around us today!" or something like that.

But really, I think all species and their lives on Earth have an intrinsic value which we should include in our decision-making process, and keeping them around if it's just for our pleasure seems rather cruel to me.
Time flows like a river. Which is to say, downhill. We can tell this because everything is going downhill rapidly. It would seem prudent to be somewhere else when we reach the sea.

"It is the old wound my king. It has never healed."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LittleLazyLass
Member Avatar
Proud quilt in a bag

OK, but whether it's a dinosaur destroying a forest or a human, Azolla causing global cooling or humans causing global cooling, the result is the same. Of course, we do it to a bigger extent, but even if one of those has the power to stop it and the other doesn't, when it's the same result, does that really matter?

I must point out the last time we delved into this territory of it downright caused a member (trisdino) to leave this site entirely.
totally not British, b-baka!
Posted Image You like me (Unlike)
I don't even really like this song that much but the title is pretty relatable sometimes, I guess.
Me
What, you want me to tell you what these mean?
Read First
Words Maybe
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Legend
Newborn
 *  *  *
Holben
Apr 11 2016, 07:08 PM
I think I'm pretty much obliged to say "aha, but dinosaurs are still all around us today!" or something like that.
You're right!

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
He's talking about birds.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Legend
Newborn
 *  *  *
Birds are birds, stupid. Dinosaurs are, like, lizards and snakes. :rolleyes:
Edited by Dr. Legend, Apr 11 2016, 08:29 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar


troll troll troll.
Posted Image
The Gaiaverse

| Eden | Terra Metropolis | Life of the Sylvan Islands |


Other Spec Evo

| Sheatheria | Serina | The Last Dinosaur

A Wholesome and Good Thing

| Sam |
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Why not let everything die?
Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HangingThief
Member Avatar
ghoulish
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Dr. Legend
Apr 11 2016, 05:07 PM
Well, I usually find it difficult to justify halting or reversing human progress, just to save an endangered species of spiders or whatever, since in my view most animals, and probably all, are basically computer programs in organic bodies. That said a lot of animals are quite similar to human children, and it can be considered a sign of psychopathy to treat an animal sadistically.

Personally I don't see this as an either/or thing. It is certainly possible to advance human progress while protecting the environment.

Like this post Zebra. You know you want to.
Define "human progress." If you mean clearing away forest so you can grow 10 times as many crops as we need in order to feed hungry livestock that serve no purpose besides tasting good, or making a golf course or something, i say save the spiders! I always liked spiders better than humans anyway.
Hey.


Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
I mean, its both futile and there's no real shame in letting evertyhing go.
Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scrublord
Member Avatar
Father Pellegrini
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Dr. Legend
Apr 11 2016, 05:31 PM
What is "natural" exactly? When a herd of dinosaurs destroys an entire forest per day, that is natural. When humans do it, it is considered unnatural. Are humans not part of nature?

The way I see it, the difference is one of intent. A herd of sauropods or elephants cannot live as they are and do otherwise. But humans are different. We can change the way we live.

Sheather
Apr 11 2016, 05:40 PM
I think the best thing we can do from this point on is not to try and act like we could still ever restore the planet to a primordial state. That's already not possible with the degree of alteration we've done to the planet. It's really not realistic to try and save such animals as red wolves, some sort of of critically endangered fish that can only survive in a single hot spring, or a specific subspecies of anything with just a few individuals left anymore. We should instead focus not on completely restoring the historic biosphere but allowing a new, functional one to reform that can survive more effectively alongside humans, since we're not going anywhere.

It's just that when I hear that kind of thinking, I imagine a slippery slope that leads straight to "We aren't going to accomplish anything, so why bother caring about the environment in the first place?" And at the very bottom of that slope I see a world not unlike the one Peter Ward envisioned in Future Evolution: one where humanity survives for millions of years, and the only wild animals left are "vermin" like rats, crows, feral cats, and snakes. Surely we can manage better than that?
Edited by Scrublord, Apr 11 2016, 11:08 PM.
My Projects:
The Neozoic Redux
Valhalla--Take Three!
The Big One



Deviantart Account: http://elsqiubbonator.deviantart.com

In the end, the best advice I could give you would be to do your project in a way that feels natural to you, rather than trying to imitate some geek with a laptop in Colorado.
--Heteromorph
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


Ruddy ducks are doing fine in the Americas. A feral population get established in Britain and they were doing well for a while, but people got concerned that they would spread to the mainland and hybridize with white-headed ducks in Spain.
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
 
Rodlox
Superhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Scrublord
Apr 11 2016, 10:49 PM
Dr. Legend
Apr 11 2016, 05:31 PM
What is "natural" exactly? When a herd of dinosaurs destroys an entire forest per day, that is natural. When humans do it, it is considered unnatural. Are humans not part of nature?

The way I see it, the difference is one of intent. A herd of sauropods or elephants cannot live as they are and do otherwise. But humans are different. We can change the way we live.
really? elephants can only live in one way?

so which ones are living incorrectly?
a) the forest elephants of Africa
b) the temperate forest elephants of China
c) the elephants of Namibia(sp)
d) the elephants of the veldt
e) the tropical rainforest elephants
.---------------------------------------------.
Parts of the Cluster Worlds:
"Marsupialless Australia" (what-if) & "Out on a Branch" (future evolution) & "The Earth under a still sun" (WIP)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply