EnviroLink Forum

Is the aim of the environmental movement to maintain a steady temperature for the Earth forever, and freeze the ecosystem as it is ?
Doesn't this mean turning the Earth into a climate-controlled farm, and therefore the end of any wilderness ?
What happens when this comes up against large scale climate effects like the Milankovich cycles ? Should they be stopped ?
I'm not a denialist, and I value the environmental movement, but I seldom see questions like this addressed. I want to see what Joe Public thinks about this.

What I see as the goal to shoot for is man and nature finding that illusive concept of a eco-system when neither is endangered and both benefit.
It doesn't have to be man vs nature in some contest or fight to the finish.

But that means, essentially, artificially freezing the ecosystem as it is, and perhaps renovating it so that it looks like it did just before the industrial revolution - and not allowing anything to endanger humanity. How is this to be achieved without exerting total control ? I don't see that it can.

I do not see it as an "either or" position. The industrial activities can be undertaken with other activities without risk of extinction by those activities as long as there are sufficient restrictions and monitoring.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

OK, the idea is to keep industry at a certain level. But you would agree that this means, in essence, total control of the Earth for human benefit, and hence the end of wildness ?
But does this mean stasis for evolution on Earth too ? No radical new species because there is no radical new environment ?

No, there are wilderness areas set aside for limited human use now. There should be no problem in maintaining them in that fashion.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Ah, that bit there - maintaining a wilderness. I don't think it's just pedantry to claim that if it's maintained then it's not wilderness. It seems more like a blind spot in the way people think and talk about this.
I think that until fairly recently you could claim that there are still wild places on Earth, uncontrolled by humans. Now the aim is to climate control the whole biosphere via CO2 control. I don't see how this can be avoided, as long as we affect the atmosphere our actions are distributed globally. Nor do I think that, as long as it is in our power, we would allow any natural warming or cooling to break human defined bounds. We're due for an ice age sooner or later, and can we say that we will simply let it happen without trying some geoengineering ?
That's why I think we've seen the last of wilderness on Earth unless it is taken out of our control by something we can't handle like a major catastrophe.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

" Our presence globally affects all ecosystems in some fashion. "

That there. CO2 level affects the very bottom of the food chain - trees, plants, plankton - and hence everything on up, plus it affects the geology too.
Before the industrial revolution large areas of the globe would be free of soot and man-made CO2, but those days have gone and you can look through the IPCC website at all the global effects of our civilisation.
Given that ice ages naturally occur every 100,000 years, sustainable civilisation isn't really sustainable unless our descendants take it upon themselves to stop the Earth wobbling on it's axis or something equally drastic. The biosphere as it is, which is so conducive to human life, is due to be wiped out naturally in the future despite any conservation efforts. Which doesn't make it unreasonable to fight to maintain things as they are, because few people really want to see catastrophe, but I think sooner or later we will have to admit that we don't really want true wilderness we want a domesticated planet.

Or maybe there is no 'we'.

There isn't any real wilderness left completely unaffected by humans. Human actions of overpopulation with depletion and pollution far beyond the natural systems' ability to regenerate or absorb. So far beyond for so long that the ice age will not be on time, unless we blow Yellowstone soon.
Humans have become a stronger force than even orbital and spin fluctuations.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Well, yes - altering the spin of the Earth would seem to be the only way to stop an ice age. However by then humanity could be unrecognisable and also capable of living nicely on Earth during an ice age. The current environment is only held to be sacrosanct because it is so good for us, and I certainly don't like the thought of it getting any warmer - I live a few inches above sea level for a start - but it is naturally doomed unless we gain total control over the Earth.

Thanks for the input from folk I appreciate it.

I understand that clearly. However, we can't deny the fact that population are increasing while resources are decreasing. If most people were not aware, how can we survive for the next 10,000 or 20,000 years?