For deep ecologists, I use the argument that without people, the animals and plants will generally go extinct in 500-1000 million years because the increasing brightness of the sun will cause runaway global warming. Humans could delay this by putting reflective material between the Earth and the sun or other means. Or humans could perpetuate species on other planets. So in the long run, it is not a good idea for other species to have humans go extinct.
I havenāt read much deep ecology, but I model them as strict anti-interventionists rather than nature maximisers (or satisficers): isnāt it that they value whatever āthe course of things without usā would be?
(They certainly donāt mind particular deaths, or particular species extinctions.)
But even if Iām right about that, youāre surely right that some would bite the bullet when universal extinction was threatened. Do you know any people who accept that maintaining a āgarden worldā is implied by valuing nature in itself?
I havenāt read much deep ecology either. Seth Baum has written that some people think there is intrinsic value in functioning ecosystemsāpresumably these people would want the ecosystems to continue as a garden world. Other people value biodiversity (number of species). But youāre right that some just want whatever would have happened naturally.
For deep ecologists, I use the argument that without people, the animals and plants will generally go extinct in 500-1000 million years because the increasing brightness of the sun will cause runaway global warming. Humans could delay this by putting reflective material between the Earth and the sun or other means. Or humans could perpetuate species on other planets. So in the long run, it is not a good idea for other species to have humans go extinct.
I havenāt read much deep ecology, but I model them as strict anti-interventionists rather than nature maximisers (or satisficers): isnāt it that they value whatever āthe course of things without usā would be?
(They certainly donāt mind particular deaths, or particular species extinctions.)
But even if Iām right about that, youāre surely right that some would bite the bullet when universal extinction was threatened. Do you know any people who accept that maintaining a āgarden worldā is implied by valuing nature in itself?
I havenāt read much deep ecology either. Seth Baum has written that some people think there is intrinsic value in functioning ecosystemsāpresumably these people would want the ecosystems to continue as a garden world. Other people value biodiversity (number of species). But youāre right that some just want whatever would have happened naturally.