News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The world is awful. The world is much better. The world c... by refurb on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @05:12AM (#39286692)
Theoretical question - if no humans existed, what is the “value” of nature?
Re:The world is awful. The world is much better. The world c... by fennecfoxy on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @12:39PM (#39291526)
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it.

Nature has value because we exist. It wasn't as important to us for a while (and still isn't) but hopefully in the future it will become more and more important to people.

Nature also has value in that it is almost irreplaceable. If humans are around long enough that we see our entire planet destroyed, we live in space; in order to replace/get a new "nature" it would take billions of years of waiting and exactly the right conditions, which may not even be reproduceable.

And even then you get a different nature; if we want the same ecosystem we have now, then it is truly priceless, truly irreplaceable.

Re:The world is awful. The world is much better. The world c... by refurb on Wednesday February 07, 2024 @11:47PM (#39298302)
> Nature has value because we exist.

Agreed. Nature without humans has no value. Nature has value because humans value it.

And at the same time humans are a part of nature. When the first humans built a hut out of wood and leaves that isn't different than a beaver building a dam.

The idea that the only "true nature" is that which has not seen human activities makes no sense. Same with the logic that "we can only heal nature by removing humans".