Tell me your future outlook of the natural world

>>2257535
Who cares, most of the endangered or extinct animals failed to adapt to a changing habitat; there aren't very many cases where humans took it upon themselves to genocide a species, it's not like we're responsible for every single living creature on this planet.

Once we get VR technology to the masses, we won't even need zoos or the animals themselves anymore, they'll all be preserved forever, digitally, and we won't have to have stupid save the pandas campaign and the only animals left will be the ones that successfully adapted, or the ones we breed for companionship, food, or scientific experimentation, the way god intended it to be.

>>2257535
Domestic cats will fill every single niche in the ecosystem. People will all die from toxoplasmosis.

>>2257539
Nowhere in the post did I make a value judgement whatever it was bad or not. That was you.
I'll tell you this: I don't care about every single species. For these reasons:
1) I simply don't like and value some species
2) The species has many species like it (I wouldn't mind a few dragonflies going extinct, if there's still plenty species of dragonflies around)
3) Mass-extinctions can happen regardless of humans
4) Extinction means opportunities for other species to flourish and evolve

On the other hand what I would find depressing:
1) A very low biodiversity world or very low complexity natural world
2) Unique species going extinct, those species without any or few relatives, once you lose them they are forever gone (consider it a heritage)
3) The species I do value, going extinct
4) Species that have a long track record for surviving, such as crocodiles and horseshoe crabs (I dunno why but it makes me sad when I think about it)

Also, if you are a Christian you would know that God gave humans a duty to care for the natural world. It was only later that Christians adopted the view that nature was something to be overcome.

Anyway I do care, but it's a mixed bag. If I were a Christian I would actually hold a much more depressing view, because with evolution you have some prospect for the future. I have not heard of the possiblity of God creating anything new, which evolution will eventually do.

The trouble with evolution of course, is that it can take extremely long for new species to become. You won't suddenly have very distinct new species in my lifetime.

>>2257539
>Who cares, most of the endangered or extinct animals failed to adapt to a changing habitat

The problem is, the habitat is changing too quickly for them to even react. Needless to say who is behind said change.

BTW that mindset of yours is pretty simplistic and even detrimental to humanity for various reasons and not counting subjective ones.

First, each specie has evolved along with its ecosystem so it becomes a piece on the puzzle and helps it do its stuff (carbon and nitrogen fixation, avoiding erosion...) by performing a role (be bacteria fodder when dead, population control,amongst others).

Consider that most of these endangered species are usually long lived, big and/or in the upper parts of the food chain.
Congratulations! By exterminating several keystone species we fucked up an ecosystem pretty badly, but the best part comes next. By doing so, the ecosystems loose their functions, and that means lost money in the end (ecosystemic services).

And even in the case of less important species, if you loose some equivalent species, complexity can decrease and so the services (which ecosystem is more productive and gets more CO2, a shrub or a forest?)

Second, each specie is like a book that can not only help us understand more about our world or even our History, but also could end up giving us the ultimate cure for a disease for example and other practical uses.
Imagine how devasted archeologists could be when buildings that were constructed millenia ago get destroyed and they couldn't study all it had to show and you'll see what I mean.

>>2257535

You're predictions have literally already happened??

1/2
>>2258325
Not all, there are many critical endangered species that are not extinct yet.
It is really a lame prediction because I just say:
>critically endangered: high probability of going extinct
>endangered: medium probability of going extinct
And so on. But I do think it is inevitable that some will go extinct.
>>2258317
I don't really want to argue with you, since you seem to be one of the few persons around here who does care about this situation. But I think some of the things you wrote are misconceptions about the natural world.
>First, each specie has evolved along with its ecosystem so it becomes a piece on the puzzle and helps it do its stuff (carbon and nitrogen fixation, avoiding erosion...) by performing a role (be bacteria fodder when dead, population control,amongst others).
Ecosystems are not static and do not move as a whole. During the Ice Age the retreating tree species (as one example) moved individually.

If you look at pre-Ice Age ecosystems you have different tree species as of now. Several species of trees have potential (climatic) ranges that are not fullfilled.

As for ecosystems getting fucked up, I hold the view that it doesn't: it just transistions. Pleistocene Europe lost many big herbivores and flora, the first due to humans the second due to climate. Yet the ecosystems are still functional.

Though I won't disagree with you that it might still loose its function and that overall it is a bad gamble. And I absolutely agree that the natural world is part of our heritage, and that we should be more respectful and caring of it.

Sometimes I feel that my view comes dangerously close to anti-environmental ideology. But I am absolutely a radical environmentalist: I honestly think that we need to restructure our economic and social system and need a different worldview as well.

I just disagree with some views of the traditional environmental view, in which my view is based on biogeography and paleoecology.

>>2259391
>loose its function
This should say some of its functions.

2/2
I am currently studying ecology, but feel it is not sufficient. Most of ecology seeks to change nature or ecosystems really, when I hold the view it is really humans that need to change such as the economic and social system.

Whereas I think that nature can recovery very well on its own. Ecosystems are self-organising, they need little help. Of course, again I agree with >>2258317 that the new ecosystem might not always provide the services and might not support the same species.

Lastly, before I leave this thread for today, I think that all this eco-technic talk is missing the point. Nature should not be valued just because it provides services and so on, it should be valuable on its own.

Because I feel this talk of services and cure for disease talk almost a kind of inventation to exploit nature in a different way, when I think what we should respect is the autonomy of the natural world.

Not to say we cannot take anything from nature, but we shouldn't reduce it to whatever we can take from it.

>>2259396
For most people, specially the ones with power to solve problems like this, you have to talk to them with numbers.
Of course nature should be valuable for ethical and aesthetical reasons as nature itself is a value, but for said people it's not enough and need more utilitarist and practical reasons. As frivolous at it may sound, it is how the world goes.

>Most of ecology seeks to change nature or ecosystems really
I dunno what kind of ecology are you studying then, mine just limited itself to the study of the processes involved in the ecosystem. But maybe it's more about conservation, is it?

I kinda reckon that the scale of global change humanity has caused is an extinction event in and of itself.

Earth will go on. It wasn't too long ago we left behind the last great period of wurm glaciation. A lot of animals died off then, too, for one reason or another. And there were untold extinction events before that.

If we fuck it up big time and wipe ourselves out before we achieve space colonization, that's that. Nature will recover using whatever's left and life will continue in one shape or another.