The thing to remember is that you can’t control the weather and even stuff people don’t 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. It’s really worth considering deeply what animals you’re trying to save and how. Let’s say in a hundred years you’ve 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.
🤔 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 isn’t gonna cut it.
It’s not bad to underestimate your own backyard. It’s wildly complex.
Do you want to preserve a certain animal or was it more of a thought experiment?
More of a thought experiment. I am contemplating how best to prevent the effects of climate collapse, as it’s one of the things I want to do with my life.
Our world is changing and it can’t be stopped. Even if we were to magically halt emissions and use carbon capture to reverse what’s been done, the consequences that are already rolling in combination with the other effects of human civilization on earth will take millennia to reach some kind of equilibrium and involve large scale devastation.
We can never recapture the past and our present is fleeting.
In that case, I would set up a foundation to manage the land and hire people to take care of it.
🤔 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 can’t control the weather and even stuff people don’t 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. It’s really worth considering deeply what animals you’re trying to save and how. Let’s say in a hundred years you’ve 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.
🤔 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 isn’t gonna cut it.
It’s not bad to underestimate your own backyard. It’s wildly complex.
Do you want to preserve a certain animal or was it more of a thought experiment?
More of a thought experiment. I am contemplating how best to prevent the effects of climate collapse, as it’s one of the things I want to do with my life.
You can’t.
We can’t.
Our world is changing and it can’t be stopped. Even if we were to magically halt emissions and use carbon capture to reverse what’s been done, the consequences that are already rolling in combination with the other effects of human civilization on earth will take millennia to reach some kind of equilibrium and involve large scale devastation.
We can never recapture the past and our present is fleeting.
What kind of future do you want?