I think has been calculated already that in the order of tens of species get extinct daily. And the rate is growing. Putting a spotlight in some particular ones a single day won’t stop the drain that we are causing in numbers much higher than the ones show here.
I think part of the point is that we tried to save these specific species and failed. That doesn’t bode well that we can’t even intentionally save species from extinction.
And from the comment about the Bachman's warbler, its extinction process started over half a century ago. So we're already lagging this problem by decades if not centuries at this point.
unless humans act in a large group to change how we follow the laws of economics & political science, we will suffer incredibly over the next few decades.
But we aren't. We're not doing enough.
There is a bullet coming towards our faces, and we are not moving out of the way.
I don't know how I'm supposed to graduate into this climate and be an optimistic member of society.
Well, just to elaborate briefly to give you something to build on.
I see the current loss of complexity and volume of life as dual to the expansion of complexity and volume of human consumption (via its displacing space and energy demand).
Human consumption is happening because of 1. the will to consume and 2. the means to exercise that will.
2. is enabled by technology with its inherent externalities and we're very familiar with it here.
1. is caused by endogenous tendencies to increase comfort and decrease pain (the idea you have yourself that maybe you don't want to starve or freeze in winter or that 50% of your children shouldn't die by mysterious forces) and by exogenous factors such as manufactured demand (the ideas you likely wouldn't have yourself and that are inserted by a third party e.g. for the newest throwaway fashion, cruise trip, avocado sandwich, smartphone refresh, ... this list is endless).
Demand is manufactured in the form of what boils down to (highly effective!) thought intrusion or hijacking of the reward system (ads, influencers, "haptic" marketing) most of which delivered via information systems. It is here that "one could" immediately intervene and get the 'reduce' going in the 'reduce, reuse, recycle'.
Additionally there's this cultural/education issue that we have become nature-blind. Ask any random person and they'll tell you they love nature and animals. And then they'll stone-cold show you that 'beautiful' picture of <dead landscape in tourist location> they shot from their line cruise (speaking from personal experience here). This is where we could use information technology and education again to shape beliefs.
A big problem is how you'd actually implement all this without having society blow up over this mysterious spectre of 'faltering economy' that is going to happen when the economic activity associated with bullshit consumption goes away (20 hour workweek anyone?).
There's obviously much more to write and things get really complex when you factor in all the different interrelated systems that have metastasized to the point they are now.
Plus we're not really aligned on this issue. I'd wager there's a significant chunk that just doesn't care and thinks it's a lame sideshow as long as it doesn't affect them until they die. I'd say it's because they have no idea what they're talking about (nature-blindness again, and forget about the rest).
Oh and what my last sentence meant: I claim if we could get to a state where we mount a giant concerted action by a sufficient number of decision makers that realign our collective activity towards preservation, we could harness the knowledge and technology we have now to execute successfully on that vision.
It's a big claim and a messy (but not implausible to solve) problem, the incalculability of which I encoded in the apostrophes around just ;)
fyi, I'd love to have you on a podcast ep. I run an actual radio show (like, over the airwaves) on sunday nights through my college. shoot me a dm I think we share a lot of the same beliefs on this :)
> A big problem is how you'd actually implement all this without having society blow up over this mysterious spectre of 'faltering economy' that is going to happen when the economic activity associated with bullshit consumption goes away (20 hour workweek anyone?).
See also: countries switching which side of the road they drive on (with lots more variables).
Perhaps for reasons similar to why the dishes from breakfast are still sitting dirty in my sink rather than clean in the cupboard.
> I'd wager there's a significant chunk that just doesn't care and thinks it's a lame sideshow as long as it doesn't affect them until they die. I'd say it's because they have no idea what they're talking about (nature-blindness again, and forget about the rest).
Even this may be optimistic, as it is.
>>>> The systems we use for coordinating our actions and beliefs aren't sufficiently sophisticated....and we are too indoctrinated to realize it.
>>> The (information) systems are actually incredibly sophisticated, but they are aligned with extraction not preservation.
>>> It "just" takes a sufficient pivot in will, a couple decades and this shit's solved.
>> Do we have any that can reliably detect and surface the errors/flaws in your comment though, in a productive/positive manner? ;)
> Oh and what my last sentence meant: I claim if we could get to a state where we mount a giant concerted action by a sufficient number of decision makers that realign our collective activity towards preservation, we could harness the knowledge and technology we have now to execute successfully on that vision.
This seems like a substantially (to a materially important degree) but different (improved) meaning - and yes, I am being "pedantic" (and evasive). Flaws remain though - is further refinement possible?
> It's a big claim and a messy (but not implausible to solve) problem, the incalculability of which I encoded in the apostrophes around just ;)
Similar to the pile of dishes in my sink....I should "just" go wash them! Nah, maybe later.
Discovered, not emerged. There are not infinite amount of species, and the number is decreasing at thousands of times the background extinction rate. Is a net loss for the system, no matter if we managed to discover them before they got extinct.
Of course, climate change and human civilization is causing a selection process that may lead to new species. But the rate of change is too fast for even them to survive to what is coming.
