![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gemfyreToday's lecture in Con Biol was on Environmental Restoration. I'd like to put a few of the notes here and my comments on them. Feel free to discuss.
Why restoration is slow
Essentially I don't believe we have the right to destroy and recreate as we see fit. We are not evolution, we will never replace what we took away exactly as it was. The essay question on it asked "Is restoration a sham to excuse environmental vandalism (because it can be fixed up)" Yes, I believe restoration is a sham.
Why restoration is slow
- Presence of reserves - "You have an area where everything is protected, why can't we just strip mine the rest of it?" "Can't you get your head around the fact that LARGE TRACTS OF LANDS constitute ecosystems?" Humans may respect borders but animals and plants don't give a shit, they will go where they feel, and should be able to do so.
- Restored systems are inferior - Who the hell are you to say this? A restored ecosystem is better than nothing. It's this value judgement thing. Humans are deciding what is worth conserving and what's not. What kind of bullshit is that?? We are not God or whatever made these ecosystems, what right do we have to decide if something is worth keeping or not? It developed where it developed due to evolutionary processes. Just because we think it's ugly or a pest means nothing, it has a place.
- If we can restore, why conserve? - oh I love this one. "We can make it all better, so lets strip mine everything." Okay, many points here. You will NEVER make it the same again because you are REMOVING SOME OF IT!! If you take all the bauxite out of an area, then rehabilite it, it will never be restored. It has no bauxite anymore, which would have been part of the ecosystem as everything else was. If somehow you can replace/fix it all. Why not just use the resources you were gonna use to restore what you mined/logged/whatever? Matter can neither be created or destroyed ya know, it's an essential law, everything will eventually go to entropy. Where do you magically get these resources to replace what you took away?
Essentially I don't believe we have the right to destroy and recreate as we see fit. We are not evolution, we will never replace what we took away exactly as it was. The essay question on it asked "Is restoration a sham to excuse environmental vandalism (because it can be fixed up)" Yes, I believe restoration is a sham.
