Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Why environmental conservation won't save nature | Lesley Hughes | TEDxSydney
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 сер 2024
- The environment is facing unprecedented challenges in the 21st Century. Yet, we’re still trying to solving new problems with out-dated thinking set by conservationists in the 1940s…
Lesley Hughes is passionate about the environment and has spent her career studying the impact of the Climate Crisis, but she refuses to call herself a conservationist any longer. If we’re going to save the environment (and the planet), it’s time to stop looking backwards for inspiration. Lesley Hughes is Distinguished Professor of Biology and Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research Integrity & Development) at Macquarie University. Her principal research interest has been the impacts of climate change on species and the implications for conservation. She is a former Lead Author in the IPCC’s 4th and 5th Assessment Report, a former federal Climate Commissioner and now a Councillor with the Climate Council of Australia. She is also a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
Before you start moving species may I point out a simple historic fact. Every time we transplant something we end up destroying a ecosystem. Hard pine trees to goats to fish. Every time it end up being completely disastrous for the local ecosystem.
While we are told to drive electric cars the baterry manufacturers are destroying the enviornment.
Spot on
We have tried for decades to get people to drive more efficient gas cars, they won't. They won't control population growth. They won't make sacrifices of any kind so doesn't that make all of this inevitable? I didn't even bother to watch the video. All that can be done now is save enough species in controlled environments and hope that someday we can rebuild some tiny part of what we trashed.
@@debrabarnhardt1103 is not us! See when they say our democracy they mean their democracy not the common man's democracy. When they say population control they don't mean bring down the numbers they mean control how you travel, while they buy mega yats, mega jets, mega homes,etc. While they want the common man to eat soy based diet to turn them into trans, live in tiny home while their homes have 15 bathrooms, open borders while their homes have 12 foot walls, no guns while they are surrounded by armed guards, defund the police while they increase their personal security. Any man that has successfully made an engine that can run on water has met en ending. Slavery is the end goal, slavery. Mentally, Physically, Emotionally,and Spiritually. Government means Governmind. That's the end goal.
@@elvisnarcisomedina9298 I agree
I don't necessarily have a problem with the idea of moving species around if its well thought out first, but the way she frames it is overly simplistic. You can't just move single species. You have to move whole ecosystems. And doing this is a logistical nightmare. Even moving single species can be problematic. Sure, we could probably locate enough larger, common species and relocate them to create breeding populations, but what about the small, the cryptic, and the rare. A better idea is preserving land along with corridors between metapopulations to allow species to move themselves if their conditions become unsuitable. This is why 30x30 and half-earth initiatives are more realistic.
Thanks for your wonderful talk which should ideally alert mankind in taking some concrete and wise steps to save the environment.
But, mankind although most evolved, as you mentioned, is also the most stupidest of species on Earth. We feel we can go on destroying Nature in the name of technology and development. What we don't realise is if we don't have the right ecological balance, mankind will also perish in natural disasters .
Nature will strike back, for sure ,which we can see happening already in the form of forest fires, floods, famines , climate changes etc .
We chop down a tree and burn it to keep ourselves warm in the winter. We clear a piece of rainforest to grow food for our family. We drill for oil to get kids to school.
We are making a decision with clear and present benefits to us or the people around us, and some amount of environmental impact as a side effect.
"What we don't realise is if we don't have the right ecological balance, mankind will also perish in natural disasters ."
"Nature will strike back, for sure ,which we can see happening already in the form of forest fires, floods, famines , climate changes etc ."
"Nature" is not a spirit fighting back against humanity. There is just a bunch of lifeforms on the ground, gasses in the air etc. None of it was planned or is planning. Its like a rubble covered mountain. It isn't planning. It isn't fighting back. Its just a thing that exists. Now it is possible to hurt yourself with it, but there is no equal and opposite reaction morality play logic going on here.
There is no rule that says climate change must everywhere be bad for humans, it can improve the growing conditions for some crops in some places. Starvation per capita is at an all time low. (Perhaps because of artificial pesticides, fertiliser and tractors. These techs work to produce a lot more food.)
We won't be wiped out by nature. The IPCC scenarios all have human living standards continuing to rise.
Thank you Dr. Hughes for taking the time to tell the hard truths, it's inspiring to hear and a relief.
We can’t go back. We have to stop fighting over the cause and start taking action by moving not only animals but ourselves in order to live in the world it is becoming.
Lesa Fox.....right! adapt or die. The problem is the fight over who is going to flip the bill for adaptation. I ask... where is the $1 trillion the IPCC collected from carbon taxes? ....
Create..innovate…intervene. Isn’t this how the problem started?
We need to be actively repairing the damage that has been caused by historical and current emissions and ecological destruction.
An example: Algae is like a tree on a heap of steroids. Essentially, because it has such a high surface area, it can absorb up to hundreds if times more CO2 than trees can. Not to mention that algae can be used as a valuable resource, as a building material, a fuel, a fertiliser, and so much more.
We need to talk about Brazil
MOSS has tokenized sections of the Brazilian rainforest in order to protect it. They’re the Saudi Arabia for carbon credits.
Why here ?
We need to talk about beef eaters
@@peterparker9954 it feels like we are going to start to take this issue seriously when we are at the edge of the precipice.
@@juliocesar4442 Amazon rainforests are getting cleared because they are used for grazing cows, thanks to all the beef eaters in the world, especially the US
Dr. Hughes, I implore you to begin leveling with your audiences about the collapse-aware reality that surely you inhabit in your private life. We need to be told not just about species collapse etc but also about the reality of human civilization decline and also the very likely possibility of civilization collapse. With respect I need to say that you (and our government and corporate decision makers) are wasting valuable time that humanity desperately needs to ‘grow up’ and prepare in whatever spiritual, psychological etc way they deem necessary as we head into collapse. It’s time we talk about grief, and about what really matters in life. It’s time to level with us and trust us to grow up - to gather together around that ‘Don’t Look Up’ dinner table in connection, love and sadness. To give thanks for this beautiful Earth, for what we had, and for each other.
Amazing talk !! but i really feel the title should be different..
I often wonder if we need to introduce a serious apex predator to keep the larger herbivores (roos, deers, pigs, goats etc) in check. The reintroduction of wolves has brought back to life different parts of the USA's national forests. They keep deer etc in check and also keep smaller carnivores in check which helps smaller animals. It would take too much courage for a scientist to even suggest introducing a wolf or a leopard or something similar. Even if they thought it would be a good thing to do.
But we have plenty examples of us, introducing certain species to try and solve a problem, and it going horribly wrong and destroying the ecosystem. We introduced it to as you showed with the wolf example it can work I would instead point to most of the invasive animals in Australia, where they were introduced to solve a problem and failed, because there is nothing that would hunt it. You have to find the right kind of balance, and that is very hard to do.
I never thought, I could lose intelligence by ever watching a TED talk, but here I am.
nature will and can fix its self when left alone ,not long after the self a pointed rulers are gone will it start to heal ,it is us all that have lost and lost we have
So wait, in this scenario why are the humans not causing more damage but also not fixing anything?
Good videoh
Superb, highly informative
The speaker is from Australia. Does she realise that the company now destroying my island (Misima) is from her backyard.
Kingston Resources Limited.
The time of intimidation and showing the hand of bullying and superiority complexity to my people's are over.
We are now educated enough to tell our people the truth.
You learnt conservation. Conservation is in our traditional culture.
Help us to get rid of this company from our island back to Australia.
I agree with Harari's analysis in "Sapiens" about how destructive humans have been and are on the environment. Asutralia one of the most obvious cases. I wish I could share Dr. Hughes's optimism, but I think we are doomed. And the rest of the species with us.
Hi 👋
“There is nothing impossible to they who will try.”
- Alexander the Great
That was amazing! The last sentences, so profound
Awesome video 🙏🏼👍🏼👍🏼
By my understanding, each organism is adapted to its environment, and to all the other organisms. Nature is a complex system, to which species is an arbitrary boundary. Doesn’t the genetic diversity within a population matter as much as the population itself? How can it be separated from it food sources, predators, microorganisms, environmental functions, etc. Extinction is something to pursue, our own. We seem to be an evolutionary dead end, and should make space for other species that might do better. We could be nearly departed by the end of the century, which would give us 75 years to clean and secure sites with explosives, unsealed mines and wells, toxic contaminants, radioactive materials, pathogens and biologics etc. then the last person just has to be sure to turn off the lights.
fear of eviction keeps people too busy to learn!
housing is a human right!
no more rent on primary residences!
Nature will save itself,probably with fire,water,wind and earthquakes.
@7:30
What is the source of this photo?
Well, well, it seems a system error decided to send the transaction to an invalid email!
What’s the name of the first mamal that went extinct ? I didn’t get the name right
We will not go to before situation of environment. Because we are so greedy.If we try to work together then it’s 90% possible
learn your local species!
there's a north american holly bush that can replace coffee. leaves full of caffeine
you can eat every part of dandelions!
You're awe-inspiring.
Good speech apart from a few weird remarks about the superiority of humans
KlimaDAO is taking a creative, pro-active approach to stopping climate change. DYR
Shared with me by Microsoft💞...I rest my case.
Does this lady know what she's proposing? I would love to see a detailed plan of this crazy talk.... just for laughs.
The indigenous peoples of the countries of the world lived and sustained their environment in their past. They lived with their nature. They understood conservation and sustainability.
We decry any further destruction of our environments. We deplore and ignore the western word's explosive need our resources to destroy their own lives. We want our peace.
The western world need to have a shift in their needs and the fight for power. This results in the mass destruction of our environment.
Conservationists should advocate the Free Prior Informed and Consent (FPIC) for the greater indigenous populations of the world to protect their environments.
Respect the rights of the indigenous peoples of the world.
exactly. many Indigenous peoples figured out the best ways to live in a way that maximized all life, not just human life, and have been trying to tell the rest of the world for centuries. that is why nation states try and exterminate Indigenous peoples- they know that they speak the truth, a truth that would put an end to all the resource extraction and ecosystem destruction in pursuit of fake money.
I need help to advocate the protection of my people's environment due to a massive mine scheduled to begin ahead. Our island is only 215 square kms. A previous mine in 1989 that lasted for 10 years left a trail of destruction. My people can no longer live a sustainable life any more.
Conservationists can stand on a huge stage and tell the world about their envy for all things nature.
Are they willing to help the indigenous on that stage as well?.🤔
@@davidealedona5818 I'm so sorry to hear about the mine. a crime against the earth, as is every mine. is there anything we can do from afar, to spread awareness or something? are there people protesting/blockading the construction that we can support?
@@user-nv5sn3tb4e We are passively raising awareness and looking at compliance issues.
We will be informing our people of the the Free Prior and Informed Consent platform, possibly through a workshop.
We are doing this at our own expense and personal funding. Travel, living allowances, training materials, etc.
We are positive about our intents but need environmental lobbyists to support our intents.
We have a group on Facebook called "The Voices of Misima Island".
Thank you.
what a pessimistic way of looking at it, listen conservation can make change we just need real practical conservation at scale.
Let's go
1stviewer
I love driving electrical car
👍🏻💐
Adapt.
Like 🌹 👍 and good
Very articulate
They might go back if it were done wholesale. Instead of talking moving nature...inevitably it is for man's convenience. do the old and do the new and then some...the train is going to hit the wall. The scurvy need to get out of every living being way. You are speaking their language. I will not be on that train.
Bible.
That's why Elon musk is making a plan B to the Mars and beyond ✨
Plan B will never work but no doubt human will land there some day but living there like earth will never work
@@rajanvk939 Never say never. "Impossible" is just a word we invented to describe something we lack the knowledge to do at a certain point in time, not an absolute thing. As a result we constantly re-evaluate what is considered possible, and thus it changes every single day.
Just for like 10 people lol
You’d have to be dreaming if you think Mars is a viable planet - which is not. Science has its limits. The budget to make Mars habitable would surpass the GDP of every government in the world combined. Not to mention, we do not have the technology to change the composition of Mars’ atmosphere, let alone all the other factors that we have to change to make Mars habitable. To the average person that has very little understanding of the natural sciences, then this project seems to be ambitious and worth being hyped about. To those that understand the physics, chemistry, and (in some cases) biology behind life on another planet, they know that this would be impossible to achieve. This is impossible from an economic and scientific standpoint.
You cannot be a conservationist and a christian at the same time, those two things are just NOT compatible.
Pontificating isn't acual science and to have thousands of variables to quantity a study of this magnitude is beyond any one agency. That ball of fire in the sky has a lot more to do with climate then humans! Now pollution is something I can support.
That ball is the sky is the most important entity in our solar system.
"If we can save nature, we can also save ourselves."
That little mouse thing went extinct, and it didn't harm any people. There are a few species whose extinction would seriously harm humanity. Crops like wheat and potatoes. There is a future where many many species go extinct, and humanity is fine. You can argue that rare shrews are important for their own sake. You can argue that the existence of these species gives humanity various modest benefits. (Eg tourism and nature documentaries. ) But humanity is basically ok without these species.
Another interesting perspective is that we will probably have the biotech tools to easily design new species within 100 years. What changes with trying to preserve species when you can buy flesh and blood pokemon? When people can design new species, often ones radically different from anything evolution can make, and easily create them.
And then there is the view that the average wild animal has a life with so much suffering that it is not worth living. The typical jungle is full of animals suffering slow and painful deaths. Wiping that out and making a sculpture garden or carpark is the moral option.
It's much more complex. The loss of one species causes a ripple effect which indeed WILL have a negative impact on human beings in the end.
@@camillaappelgren9204 What are these ripple effects? How big are the effects on humans? Is every effect in a mass of complex indirect effects negative? (Like won't the ripple effect sometimes reduce the numbers of some pest or disease vector, leaving humans better off?)