A dream came true: Half grown Siberian tiger in the snow

erichK wrote:

TN Args wrote:

Have a read of this.

An ecosystem that naturally has individual lives and whole species arising and falling is fine, and the pace is such that adaptations can occur in some instances and not in others. An evolutionary pace. One day, the conditions of existence will eliminate it all, if not earlier then, ultimately, when the sun moves through its own life cycle.

But when one part of that system becomes completely dominant, reproduces rampantly to plague proportions, overwhelms all other life (the 'background' species extinction rate is 1 to 5 species per year, but today it is 1,000 to 10,000 times that rate), greatly accelerates climate changes on a planetary scale, then adaptation becomes impossible and the system is on course to abrupt collapse.

To argue 'that's okay too' is essentially a death wish. Essentially the same as willingly being part of the evil monster of so many morality tales, set on course to destroy the planet.

Well said. The article makes the very simply point that human activity has become the - major driver of cataclysmically-rapid environmental disruption that is accelerating because we are continue to feed major positive feedback processes (global warming, ocean acidification, etc)

Not a single scientist can prove a cataclysm, disruption or that any development is bad.
Anyone can write a book btw. Climate change deniers are good at it since they cannot write papers that will pass peerreviewing since it lacks facts to prove their point.

Many papers on ecology would face the same faith if it weren't infected by an ideology that dictates what is right or wrong on preferences rather than facts.

Show me one peerreviewed paper on climatology that uses valueladen wording. Won't be there because what we think about a proven development is personal and never scientific for scientists cannot prove something is bad or good. We need to decide. All of us.

To sit back and do nothing, insisting that these are inevitable, even as one continues to contribute to them is not just immoral, it is, in the not-very-long-run, suicidal.

Well 200 years ago people would agree in the same vain that homosexuality is unnatural, abberation and amoral. Would you agree with that stance?

The iceage decimates species big time. In Europe especially after each iceage our flora is less abundant. We used to have Tsuga and Pseudotsuga species, we only have one Picea species left with a remnant of another one (omorika).

Is it the right thing to halt an iceage to prevent our own extinction, to prevent other extinctions? What is the consistent moral here of you.
Another point: we live in the Anthropocene. The age of Homo sapiens sapiens, just like we had the age of the dinosaurs for over 100 million years btw. Now what would happen if we would become extinct tomorrow to all other species on the world, to climate change? Climate would continue to warm up for about 50 years and then slowly start to cool down. Some species that had too few members left would still vanish, but the rate of extinctions would go down abruptly.
Since there is no sign at all of less signfiicant influence of humans globally now nor in the following decades, wouldn't it be good if we became extinct sooner than later??
Also this all is not exactly news, CLub of Rome is about 50 years ago.....so those in charge, which we chose mostly via our votes, care about..economy more...

So: should we just not disappear for the greater good?

What are your morals on this?

In the case of the Siberian Tiger, there are simpler solutions: stamping out the bizarre trade in Tiger body parts by really going after the customers as well as the poachers and supply chain.

if it was so simple it would already be a fact. It is not so simple it seems...We should just stamp out drugs...Right: we can't even keep 'em out of prison, a very controlled, confined area. But we cannot.