Its probably against the platform rules to state the best way. But if you're curious you could look up the french revolution and the battle of blair mountain.
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
36 points (90.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43777 readers
2316 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The capitalist will sell us the rope something something
They asked the wrong Lemmy.
Makes me wonder if there's an opportunity for /c/AskLemmyFromMotorhead
edit: thanks to the bot for a reminder
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/Wh3t49NsWBA
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
This is correct.
You dont.
You alone cant stop multi billion companies from destroying their habitats.
This. Unite with people around you and fight for the future
Like another commenter said, attracting insects can help, by providing food for pollinators and other bugs which also help feed smaller animals which then feed larger animals etc. Never ever use herbicide/pesticide, or artificial fertilizer. (For example, anything with glyphosate in it will kill anything with permeable skin in the area. Salamanders will die from levels even below EPA standards of safe drinking water.) If you need fertilizer use compost.
Even better: kill your lawn. Let native wildflower species take over. If it all turns to clover, you don't even have to mow it.
The main problem is our economic system which demands infinite, unsustainable profit and expansion, so at the very least get the conversation going on that. I know it's impossible for an individual to fight the whole world, but that's why organizing is important. You must build a large enough group to become a force for change.
In the meantime, since we aren't ready to kill capitalism, make your own space as much of a sanctuary as it can be.
π€ I wonder how much milkweed costs. We have an epic fuckton of butterflies in our neighborhood, and attracting monarchs seems like a good idea, come to think of it. Thanks
Make sure to pick native plants. Don't unbalance something else with an under researched plan.
Whatβs the best way to βkill a lawnβ without harming the local ecosystem?
Just don't water it. If it's someone elses lawn, you get involved in local government to make sure that lawncare is an unlawful requirement for all HOA's etc.
Insect-friendly garden.
- Eat low on the food chain and try to minimize unnecessary consumption.
- Don't have children. Probably this should be #1 because there's really nothing as environmentally damaging as creating another human (and all their descendants).
- Try to convince others to do the same when you can.
Trying to help specific individual wild animals is never going to have an impact close to any of those items, unless you're already very wealthy and powerful.
This is 100% wrong and individualistic thinking with a healthy dose of sophomoric "humans are the disease" thinking.
This is 100% wrong
How about a counterargument instead of just saying "no"? If I'm wrong, it shouldn't be difficult to refute my points.
You also weren't very clear about what you think is wrong. I'm assuming point #2, but who knows.
load more comments
(6 replies)
....Start a suicide cult?
Only semi-sarcastic with this one - nothing personal towards you, my point is just that everything else in the planet would do far better without us (the only exception I can think of is our pets that have learned to depend on us). Yes, I'm very fun at parties...
But that CO2 will stay in the air and the oceans regardless unless we do something. Killing ourselves won't solve anything. I know it's tempting and even seems logical to hate humans on account of all this, but other animals have accidentally caused mass extinctions before, and we are the first with the ability to reverse it. So please, let's focus on meaningful solutions and not give in to our demons.
This is brilliant!
I realized shortly after posting how unhelpful my response was (you were quick!)
It's all good fam, I know how bleak things look and how easy it is to fall into despair in such trying times. I guess the moral of all of this is that all we have is each other, and working together is what it'll take to solve the problem.
Wow, you really are the greatest!
Keen on being a shining light, cuz!
Go with the classic: build an ark.
π€
Donate to WWF.
I'm not sure I entirely trust large charities. There should be local habitat charities which may have more stake in your local conservation efforts or zoo/wildlife projects nearby to look up.
You concerns are well-founded. Charity, large or small, is just a middleman to address a social problem that should be addresses by the appropriate governmental body through progressive taxation to begin with. The reason large charities exist is so that revolutionary ways to address our current economic order can be safely redirected from any kind of long-term action that may threaten the status quo.
you can't.
consider just one tiny ecosystem: american prairie (in general, not all the different kinds of prairie).
prairies are maintained by fire. natural fires come from lightning strikes and places that get more strikes are more likely to have scrublands, prairies, barrens, etc. strikes are related to global weather patterns and when they increase or decrease in regions those places are gonna change into different ecosystems that will support different animals and plants. the spread of fire is regulated by all kinds of fire breaks, a good amount of which are manmade.
without that ecosystem, the animals from it can't live. a person could try to mitigate the effects of manmade firebreaks and manmade fire avoidance systems with proscribed burns but that's a much more holistic approach to saving the animals and a lot of the work understanding it is from game management perspectives, not ecosystem preservation.
so lets say you did decide you have a hundred acres that youre gonna turn into prairie and manage through proscribed burns while the weather patterns that would have naturally allowed for its existence shift wildly and new, unexpected manmade firebreaks come into being as people adjust to climate change.
what happens when you die or can't afford to manage that little preserve? what happens when the rainfall gets too far out of line to really have whatever particular kind of hipster ass barren (i'm not slagging on barrens but there's a bunch of kinds that are particular to specific areas) you happen to be shepherding along? what kind of preserves should be maintained for animals whose natural existence is now impossible? what about wide ranging or migratory animals?
have a natural lawn and do burns and try to appreciate animals but also try to recognize that you can't save them. the world is changing and their environments are going away. there's not much that can be done about it on an individual level. love them while they're here i guess.
In that case, I would set up a foundation to manage the land and hire people to take care of it.
π€ So I'll need wealth, a lot of wealth. I guess maybe that's the answer.
Actually getting rich and building artificial habitats to preserve species doesn't sound like a bad idea.
The thing to remember is that you canβt control the weather and even stuff people donβt usually think about like lightning strike frequency have huge effects on the types of ecosystems that a given area can sustain and move through.
Having wild, native environments you manage is great. Itβs really worth considering deeply what animals youβre trying to save and how. Letβs say in a hundred years youβve managed to preserve a tiny three hundred acre swath of habitat and keep it from becoming destroyed. Are the animals there saved with no habitat they can live in unless people maintain it? You may well end up creating wildlife thatre as unviable in nature as brachycephalic dogs.
π€ Doming over parts of the land would mitigate most of those problems.
Honestly, I think that most environments are going to end up being human controlled, especially as we begin human expansion into space and bring those environments up with us, so it's kind of a moot point.
I think you might be seriously underestimating the complexity of the ecosystems around you.
For an idea of the complexity we havent touched on: soil acidity, moisture content and average temperature determines what fungi and microbiota can live there. Those determine what plants and fungi and animals can live in the area and what relationships they can have with each other. If that still sounds like something you can get your head around, the mineral content, the very origin of the rocks that would be weathered into substrate for the microfauna of any one of thousands of biomes have deep implications for what chemical pathways energy moves around.
If you want them to exist only so that the animals (which ones?) can exist in what people will view as a natural setting then yeah, using domes to make something like an ecosystem that has for example grouse or turkey is possible. If you want the ecosystems to exist in their truly natural interactions with each other as systems whose existence is tied to the entire global climate, a dome isnβt gonna cut it.
Itβs not bad to underestimate your own backyard. Itβs wildly complex.
Do you want to preserve a certain animal or was it more of a thought experiment?
There's nothing we can do at this point. Help animals die a dignified death while they still have a chance. They are going to slowly cook alive otherwise.
I don't have any hope left for the planet.
Castration.
You will save those who aren't born yet.
That hot moment when you realize you forgot to add the [serious] tag
Suicide. Every human less increases some poor animal's chances. If enough people died today, some species may even not go extinct just yet.
God damn do some of you people need lithium scrips
You asked and that's the simple truth. The climate collapse you mentioned is caused / accelerated by humans and nothing decreases an individuals carbon footprint more than dying. Less humans = less consumption = less human impact on the global climate = better chances of survival for animals.
Us dying off wouldn't fix the climate and you and I both know that. Only human ingenuity can. My question is how. A lot of you all are speaking in bad faith, unironically calling for people to die over this as if it's going to fix anything. You all need therapy
Us dying off wouldnβt fix the climate
Not short-term, but absolutely in the long run, since it definitely would make it a lot easier for natural balance to fix itself if we stopped messing with it. "The planetβ’" has recovered from other accidents before, humans are just another speed bump. It surely wouldn't hurt if we just stopped pumping greenhouse gasses into the air today.
Only human ingenuity can
I think you're severely overestimating our capabilities as a species. It's always easier to break something than to fix it and it took us a good few decades to fuck up our climate in the first place. I admire your optimism regarding humanity, but I honestly think it's futile. As long as there's money to be made, no amount of regular people trying to save the planet is going to make any impact. Or in other words: the world won't be saved below 13 figures.
unironically calling for people to die over this
No the hell I'm not. You asked for "the best way", i.e. the most efficient way, to save animals. Answer: Since humans are the biggest threat to all of nature (that includes animals), less humans = higher chance of survival for everything else. If you asked "what's the best way to increase Zebra populations" I would've said "get rid of lions", but that doesn't mean I'd advocate for it! If you want something to live, the easiest way to achieve that is to remove what's killing it. And when it comes to most species, that, more often than not, is humans. No bad faith, no disingenuity, just the simple observatoin that the most dangerous threat to all living things on earth are humans and everthing else would be way better off if we weren't around. Nowhere did I ever mention that it's something I'd actually recommend anyone to do.
For the same reason the best non-morbid thing people can do to help save the climate is not having children, since the environmental impact of having a child is up to 58,6 tonnes of additional carbon each year.
Climate has always been changing and animals were always around. Not always the same species, but there won't be any collapse because even the worst IPCC predictions (that won't come true because of myriad of reasons, even by IPCC's own acknowledgement) predict weather like it was in Eocene when certain animals, mammals specifically, prospered.
view more: next βΊ