Hacker News Reader

Comment by master_crab | Hacker News Reader

Arguably, the only good conservation involves removing all humans forever. Given how that’s not a workable or good idea (from a self-preservation perspective) everything else is open to interpretation.

(Not an argument for maximalist interpretations)

View on HN

Indeed I would argue that this is the worst possible "conservation", since it eliminates the only thing that values conservation, human brains.

Exactly. "Conservation" is the wise use of resources, while "preservation" is the complete rewilding of those resources.

This looks like old anthropocentric philosophy. Add the concept of a divine Creator that gives human all of his wise willpower and you’ll have most chances to be published and applause in the XVIII century.

I think a lot of environmentalists do have a very anthropocentric view though - humans are viewed as a uniquely corrupting, malevolent force that's a blight on the natural balance of the world. But every other species would do the same, if they could. Our worst instincts are the ones that we share with all other life on this planet - to expand at the expense of everything else. To be selfish, and grow without limit.

Ironically one of the things that's unique to humans is our ability to feel guilty about our impact on the environment.

Humans are uniquely powerful in the history of life, which is almost functionally indistinguishable from "uniquely corrupting" in this context. I don't know if that's exactly a defense, but it's at least an understandable mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event#Hypothes...

Ok fine, unique except for maybe that one time.

Humans as a species don’t value conservation. Individual humans. The total removal of human beings is still the best form of conservation.

Conservation of what? Exact state of the ecosystem today? That goes until the next comet hits the Earth. And eventually all the life dies out when Earth core gets colder and volcanism ends. But with humans there is a chance to save and spread the life in general by moving to other planets, and using other yet unknown technologies.

Yes the remaining ecosystem we have left today. Earth core will colder in millions of years. The rate at which we’re making life in general except for a few strains that are useful for human consumption, will not last that long. And yes a comet could hit the earth any time and wipe out all life, but that also means it could happen before you moved to other planets by using unknown technologies.

A comet could wipe out all humans as well, but we don’t use that as an excuse to start wiping out other humans do we? Then why don’t those rules apply to the rest of the life we share this planet with?

When plane is crashing, one wouldn't suggest the pilot to jump off to make the plane lighter.

Same here, if life has any chance at all to survive long term, that chance is through humans.

Sadly we are not all powerful and some species will go extinct before being restored, but if humans are "removed" these species living a few more years on a doomed planet is not any better.

Moreover, saying that ultimate goal of nature conservation is removal of humans is simply counterproductive, it makes people ignore the nature conservation efforts as suicidal mental illness, while we are mindlessly wasting priceless library of useful genes and proteins that took billion years to develop.

Why are the humans the only bad species to be eliminated? Certainly there must be a few others that get in the way of our earthly Eden? Maybe mosquitoes? Maybe boa constrictors? Deer have a way of stripping a plot of land of trees and vegetation. Need I go on?

That also implies there is no loss from removing everything uniquely human from the world.

More fundamentally, what is the goal? What do we want to maximise?

Beauty.

Famously subjective.

Its the nearest neighbor to everyone's best interest and most interpretations are preservationist.

Well, is the world more beautiful with mammoths, or without?

They do have lovely strawberry blonde hair.

Paper clips

No, that's education: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U#t=7m40s

Fantastic answer, and the only correct one I see

https://www.decisionproblem.com/paperclips/index2.html

Minimise entropy, maximise knowledge, kinship, time.

Maximize crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women.

Wouldn't it also be fair to point out that humans are part of the ecosystem, not outside of it?

From a purely ecological standpoint, removing us would be just as disruptive as removing any other dominant species. Like any apex predator, or really, any lifeforms, we're acting in ways that prioritize our own survival and propagation. Whether that's through agriculture, technology, or resource extraction, it's arguably just a continuation of what evolution has selected for in every species: survival, reproduction, expansion.

What I mean is that it's easy to moralize human impact as uniquely destructive, but in a systems view, isn’t this just another emergent behavior of a successful species? I wonder if the real issue is less about "humans vs nature" and more about how we can integrate long term thinking into a system that historically rewards short term gains.

I suppose evolution will have the last say, as it always does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com