• Darkness343@lemmy.worldBanned
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well top bad. They can go extinct and be replaced by forest species who are prettier to look at

    • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Over 95% of the Taklamakan Desert is covered in shifting sand, meaning it has long been considered a “biological void,” according to the study. The desert has been growing since the 1950s, when China underwent massive urbanization and farmland expansion. This conversion of natural land created the conditions for more sandstorms, which, in general, blow away soil and deposit sand instead, causing land degradation and desertification.

        • highduc@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m not sure I get your question. More natural… is more natural better? The desert itself is natural, and it’s expanding due to winds carrying the sand away - desertification. That’s also a natural process, but it’s not good for living things like vegetation and animals. It’s hard for life to flourish in the desert.
          “Making the desert bloom” we can argue is less natural, because it’s made through human intervention. But it sure as hell will be good for the flora and fauna that will be inhabiting that area. And it’ll be good for us humans too, and for “the planet/the environment” we can say, because food can’t grow in the desert, humans and animals can’t live in the desert, etc. There’s no water, no shade, no food, nothing in a desert.
          Afaik (and I’m no expert in the matter, I just saw videos and articles about this) Spain is also having issues with desertification, and so is Africa, and other places too probably. Humans there are trying to stop the process too, by building “green walls” and stuff. I think it’s a good endeavor.