Do we need a new environmentalist movement?

all environment groups are just a bunch of pussies too afraid to hurt anyones feelings.

>b-b-b-but the poor widdle feral cots

>>2207015
People are unable to see cats or dogs as animals they have become personalized.

>sometimes misanthropic
And...? Overpopulation in general is clearly causing the most damage of any issue on our planet (and this is BEFORE Africa etc. goes full industrial mode).

Personally I think ecofascism is pretty interesting. Edgy as fuck and inherently elitist, but it deals with a multitude of increasingly pressing issues that very few people wish to address.

http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism/

>>2207021
overpopulation isn't really an issue if the population isn't retarded.

>>2207021
>And...?
I think it isn't particularly helpful.
>Overpopulation in general is clearly causing the most damage of any issue on our planet
I am not so sure. The way we use resources and what we eat is in my opinion more important.

Thank you for the contribution and not being a tripfag. Will check out the link anyway.

>>2207024
Right, I did say "in general". As we all know though, a majority of people are fairly retarded and couldn't give a shit about any damage they cause.
>>2207030
>the way we use resources and what we eat
Clearly also very important issues, but at the current rate of population growth in the developing world (and demographic replacement in the west) they aren't going to change positively. Just think of all the billions of people who will enter their own equivalents of the modern age, are they really going to reject all the literal and metaphorical goodies rampant technology will hand them? Look at all the terrible ideologies and treatment of animals and nature currently going on in these nations, it won't suddenly dissipate as they become 'enlightened'.

>>2207050
>Clearly also very important issues, but at the current rate of population growth in the developing world (and demographic replacement in the west) they aren't going to change positively. Just think of all the billions of people who will enter their own equivalents of the modern age, are they really going to reject all the literal and metaphorical goodies rampant technology will hand them? Look at all the terrible ideologies and treatment of animals and nature currently going on in these nations, it won't suddenly dissipate as they become 'enlightened'.
Yea you are absolutely right.
But there aren't necessarily all negative ideologies there.

And to get to your point, China wants to eat like the west: like milk and beef. Which also happen to be the least environmental friendly.

Hope India keeps their food culture and so on because it seems fine (from an outsider's look and with not knowing too much about it).

I think we need a more logical perspective that isn't so emotion-driven.

Humans will continue to expand, and not all species will survive. Period. There are 20,000 endangered species. We can't and won't save them all no matter how hard we try (like that damn pyrenean ibex where the last one was killed by a fucking falling tree branch). More than half the species that have gone extinct (officially) in the last 5 years had climate change cited as the cause. We can't fix that. There will never be wild populations again when the climate is to blame for killing them.

This it's how it's always been. We need to shift our resources to answering the question "What is most important? What does the Earth need to maintain the ecosystem? How do we preserve that balance?"

Earth does not need siberian tigers. Or black rhinos. or golden dart frogs. We DO need honey bees. Pick and choose. Just because it's cute or novel, doesn't mean we can (or should) bring it back from the brink of extinction. There are other species which are much,much more important than the passenger pigeon.

>>2207060
>I think we need a more logical perspective that isn't so emotion-driven.
Can agree.
>not all species will survive. . We can't and won't save them all no matter how hard we try
I think so too. But how do we choose?

I think we should set aside some nature (not in the wilderness sense) and should see what survives and try to create a human landscape that allows for corridors and patches of nature.

Even wolves and bears show they can survive in a human dominated landscape.
>We DO need honey bees.
I am not even sure if this is true tho. I feel it stems from a myth. We do need pollinators but honey bees aren't the only ones.

Still I think we should be careful with our honey bees.

File: 00-unknown-artist-the-golden-idol-of-the-lord-of-world-capitalism-1918-20.jpg (648KB, 1200x1560px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 1200x1560px

environmentalists don't like capitalism because it's incompatible. capitalism is about consuming; environmentalism is about sustaining.

>>2207015
It's weird that animal welfare groups, the groups that are supposed to care for domestic species, are the ones most adamant about mass killing feral animals

>>2207078
So ok, what is a better system? Communism was just as bad, if not worse.
I firmly believe that we just need regulation, taxation and laws.

>>2207091
A better system hasn't been invented yet.

People need to start caring about the environment for reasons they can't find about Sea World first.

>>2207074
>>We DO need honey bees.
>I am not even sure if this is true tho.

It's complicated. There's about 4,000 species of bee and all of them do different things, in different regions, to different types of foliage. It's true we need bees, unless you want to live off shit that doesn't need to be pollinated like walnuts and potatoes ... WHICH bees we need and whre ... well, I can't tell you. I only what I just mentioned. I imagine that can't be summed up in a paperback book.

>scientism
/his/ pls go

>>2207094

Yeah, you don't need a particular system. Kind'a like how gun control isn't a part of democracy. You can have a democracy with environmentalism. They don't have to be merged.

>>2207078
>capitalism is about consuming;

This is why >>2207060 will win out. Selective sustainability. Only sustaining what we need, and (more importantly) what is profitable. Normally the same thing. For example, bees will never go extinct because there is money is honey. King Crab will always be around, just bred in captivity. Because money. So it goes. They will genetically engineer the shit out of everything that they have to and make sure it survives. Because money.

>>2207215
>/his/ pls go
Now that I think about it, when I talk of scientism I am thinking more of the thinking that everything can be solved using technology. Not so much science.

Interesting that you say /his/, that was the first board I went to. But I have often been accused of being a STEMlord, especially on /lit/.

>>2207217
>For example, bees will never go extinct because there is money is honey
wew

Capitalism better start working its magic soon, because the honey bees are still disappearing at an alarming rate.

>>2207085
how is that weird? these people see first hand the suffering that pet-overpopulation (often due to ruthless and greedy breeders but also irresponsible pet owners) brings with it

I remember seeing some faggy article about "puppicide", with a fat picture of a sad puppy.
fucking retards.

same people "outraged" by this probably let their unneutered dog run free in the neighbourhood or buy puppies online from shady puppymills

>>2207277

Also, there's an image problem. Ferals make the good ones look bad. So there is probably a certain amount of indifference among sympathizers.

It's hard to keep your client in a positive light when their brother is doing horrible things constantly. As their PR consultant, you might not care so much if that brother fell off a cliff. It's a boon to your job.

This is just my opinion as someone in grad school for bio. I have had classes in ecology, but it isn't my specialty.

Global warming/climate change/global cooling has been hyped and distorted. It is much easier to get government funding when you frame your research like this "studying the impact manmade global warming has had on the breeding patterns of the spotted newt, in region x" rather than "studing the breeding patterns of the spotted newt, in region x"

Government funding whether from the US or EU, pretty much drives the discussion in science currently.

The actual things that are important cost a great deal of money and will not make people rich. Cleaning up heavy metals from a body of water is insanely expensive, convincing third world countries to stop slash/burning the rainforest, to get a few decent years of farming. I hope you can see what I am getting at.