We are killing species at 100-1,000 times the background rate. The damage can never be undone. The Earth may recover, on geological time scales, but 99.9% of those species aren't ever coming back. It's extremely unwise to be committing mass murder on the biosphere like this, and not a matter of "frugality".
Personally, I think it's very important, and I think most people would agree, to prevent harm and cost to humans, and to enable them to be free, live long, and prosper. [0] I don't think there's a higher moral or practical imperative - if you don't care about that, what do you care about? The GGP said "life on Earth will be around long after our species and its descendants cease to exist", implying that the extinction of humans was not an issue!
Damage to nature, as a general concept, can often shorten lives, cause great harm to the living (warfare, starvation), and cost enormous amounts of money - climate change is very expensive. One reason is that we have enormous amounts of fixed capital - 10,000 years worth, in a way - invested in the ecosystems as they currently are, including all our agriculture, ports, cities, infrastructure, borders, food and water supply, etc. etc. It will be very expensive and pointless to rebuild it all for new ecosystems instead of just retaining what we have.
Also, most people agree that harming animals is also wrong, though not nearly on the level of harming humans. If you physically abuse your dog, for example, people will be angry and there are laws against it in most places.
And I think most people value what is 'natural' to some degree; it seems like a common value of humanity across time and cultures. They prefer the natural hill to the strip-mined one, the green field to the parking lot. They also like coal and parking their car, so there are competing values too.
Personally, I think it's very important, and I think most people would agree, to prevent harm and cost to humans, and to enable them to be free, live long, and prosper. [0] I don't think there's a higher moral or practical imperative - if you don't care about that, what do you care about?
Believe it or not, I have met many people which have a belief system close to "humans are scum and deserve to go extinct" along with "but we're hurting rabbits, and they're cute!".
These people prattle on extensively about how our activities are "hurting the planet", without caring that we're actually hurting ourselves. We aren't part of the equation. Mostly, these sorts just repeat things they've heard without ponderance or thought.
I've had conversations with people about how mosquitoes are important, not to be a food source for things, but instead, because "poor mosquitoes". It doesn't matter to them that mosquitoes are the number on killer of humans, AND the same can be said for the harm caused to animals.
I often wonder if this sort is just a troll. Trolls existed way before the internet ever existed, they can be found at town meetings.
Ah well.
Re: mosquitoes. I absolutely think we should genetically engineer methods which result in the extinction of all blood sucking animals. Leeches, mosquitoes, all flies, bed bugs, you name it. The pain and misery that humans and animals alike suffer from such horrors, is immense.
Animals have been seen to run off of cliffs, due to biting flies swarming them.
They spread disease, they cause infection, and frankly if 10% of birds of extinct as a result, well I will be sad but call it a fair price.
We need to start geo-engineering our own biosphere. This seems like a very good start.
(NOTE: before replying, people should consider. Do they live in a nice city, with almost none of the above parasites? Or do you have great experience of going outside in the spring, in a rural area, with quite literally mosquitoes so thick that you have a hard time seeing through them?
Have you lived in an area where you're being attacked by 100s of insects simultaneously? That's not an exaggeration, even remotely, I can walk outside my door in May and have literally more than 100 insects trying to suck my blood in under a minute.
If these things aren't true, if you don't know what life is actually living in nature, and not just inside a city, then I submit that your opinion has far less value.)
Yes indeed, if you work on a thing, any thing, mistakes can be made.
That does not mean you stop working towards a goal, or you drop the concept of modifying the universe around you. If that were so, we'd still be in the stone age.
Instead you observe those mistakes, consider the lesson of those mistakes, and then apply them towards further efforts. Anything else means we may as well give up all science, and cower in caves.
One of those lessons learned is we now look askance at people who say things like:
> I absolutely think we should genetically engineer methods which result in the extinction of all blood sucking animals. Leeches, mosquitoes, all flies, bed bugs, you name it.
If by this you mean "We should be afraid to do things, because once someone made a mistake", then I guess yes.
As per my prior comment, the sort of logic you are employing is "A bad thing happened once, so we MUST stop all efforts along this tact". Such thought processes are akin to "Let's curl up into a ball and cower". If we took this tact, literally every scientific improvement we've ever had would be out the window, because literally everything we've done has killed people.
Instead what we "know better now", is that we know that we absolutely must look at the entire food chain. We know that we must examine potential ramification with greatest care. We know "better now", to take great care, and move with great deliberation.
The answer is not to go back to the caves. Or to halt progress. The answer is to do better.
To speak to the posted wikipedia article?
In as with many things, it is incorrect.
Here is what it says:
The resulting agricultural failures, compounded by misguided policies of the Great Leap Forward, triggered a severe famine from 1958 to 1962.
Here is what the discovery article says:
The mass deaths of sparrows and nationwide loss of crops resulted in untold millions starving and 20 to 30 million people dying from 1958 to 1962. A 1984 article on the mass famine put it simply: “China suffered a demographic crisis of enormous proportions”
Here is what the paper summary says:
The largest famine in human history occurred in China in modern times and passed almost unrecognized by the outside world. Demographic evidence indicates that famine during 1958-61 caused almost 30 million premature deaths in China and reduced fertility very significantly. Data on food availability suggest that, in contrast to many other famines, a root cause of this one was a dramatic decline in grain output that continued for several years, involving in 1960-61 a drop in output of more than 25 percent. Causes of this drop are found in both natural disaster and government policy. The government's responses are reviewed and implications of this experience for Chinese and world development are considered.
Note how the Wikipedia states 20 to 30 million died directly from starvation. The discovery article states that "untold millions" died from starvation, and as well, "20 to 30 million dying", which of course can be "related". EG, mass migration, unrest, civil disobedience, and more.
Note how the paper itself says, that it was caused by "natural disaster and governmental policy", with "natural disaster" listed first.
I cannot access the paper, but I presume there was not just locust, and not just governmental policy, but a myriad of things happening at the same time, of which governmental policy was one of them. Otherwise, governmental policy would be the primary discussion, not one of the events.
In short, I dispute the numbers presented. I suspect this is a tale that has grown more and more dire, with each retell.
However! I absolutely agree that unplanned efforts, and mistakes, can indeed be disastrous. There are other examples of how dire, messing with an ecosystem can be. Yet that does not mean we stop!. If anything, we'll have to do more work in this regard, as global warming changes things faster than evolution and species migration can happen naturally.
Yeah, ecosystems are fragile, they're equilibria. Of course if you disrupt them you eventually get another one, but I'm quite fond of the ones we have and not looking forward to a cool fungi and jellyfish locust swarm ecosystem or whatever comes next.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
We are killing species at 100-1,000 times the background rate. The damage can never be undone. The Earth may recover, on geological time scales, but 99.9% of those species aren't ever coming back. It's extremely unwise to be committing mass murder on the biosphere like this, and not a matter of "frugality".