Here's an article about a new debate going on: Should humans help species move ahead of global warming? If an area is becoming too hot or rainfall levels are changing, should we dig up plants and move them north or uphill? Should we move them past cities and around thousands of square miles of agriculture?
Some would argue it's merely an extension of things we do now--reintroducing a species to its former habitat such as wolves to Yellowstone, shipping Dennis the wayward manatee back to Florida, wildlife rehabilitation of injured animals. Almost everything about our society interferes with the processes of the natural world; why not try to do good and alleviate the harm we've done? I can appreciate the sentiment; I think to even care whether another species is going to survive automatically qualifies a person as a better than average human.
But my opinion is that this going too far in trying to manage the world, and is a desperate attempt to assuage our guilt. I oppose it philosophically and more importantly, practically. I think the more apt comparisons are to the many alien species which we have deliberately or accidentally introduced to an area and thereby caused the extinctions of the species which were already there.
Despite the attempt of humans to do so, a species does not live in isolation in its location. It is dependent on an entire web of uncountable seasonal events and interactions with other species, from the time of year different plants grow in a forest to animal migrations to birth times and rates. The notion that we are capable of managing the natural world is simply false, and exactly the type of attitude which is responsible for the problems that world now faces.
Sunday - Saying Yes to the World
18 hours ago