4 ms·

The framing in these things is always wrong. We are not protecting the planet. The planet will be fine. The planet has been fine for a long time. What won't be

The framing in these things is always wrong. We are not protecting the planet. The planet will be fine. The planet has been fine for a long time. What won't be fine is a certain kind of primate that likes to live in certain places.

adamnemecek 10y ago
Now that we've rephrased the problem, what does it mean moving forward?
- debacle 10y ago
  That not every person choosing to be ecologically responsible is the tree-hugging, job killing, PETA strawman, for one.
  - adamnemecek 10y ago
    Was there such an implication?
    - ZenoArrow 10y ago
      Culturally, yes. It doesn't matter if that was the reality or not, the cultural narratives that surround environmentalism do have an effect on who takes part, which means overcoming personal prejudice is part of the movement towards a greener future.
wuschel 10y ago
Spot on. Once the food chain collapses, primates and many other higher life forms will be in peril.
moufestaphio 10y ago
George Carlin had a good bit on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVE-efyv2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVE-efyv2c
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  That's indeed pretty good. Thanks for the link.
almostApatriot1 10y ago
This type of response is intentionally obtuse. By 'planet' people mean the planet's ecosystems. By the time humans are in danger, 90%+ of other species will probably be long gone.
- _qc3o 10y ago
  So? The planet has also gone through several extinction events. The white knighting ain't helping anyone. Obtuse or not.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    His obtuseness point is that you know exactly what he means by protecting the planet, but you chose to interpret that phrase literally.
    - jogjayr 10y ago
      > but you chose to interpret that phrase literally. But when we're dealing with geological timescales I think a literal interpretation may be the right way of looking at it. Would it be sad if 90% of Earth's species died off? Certainly, if there were any humans around to do the mourning. But zooming out a bit, the current die-off isn't anything new. There have been mass extinctions and rapid alterations of climate and atmosphere in the Earth's past too. Humans originated on this planet and we are a part of the ecosystem. In a way, anything we do to nature is simply one part of nature being wildly out of equilibrium. If we mess it up, it'll mean curtains for us but life itself will march on. In 10-50 million years after we're gone, there will arise lifeforms that are just as interesting and varied as anything we have now. Which, on a geological timescale, really isn't that long (between 0.0025% and 0.0125% of the Earth's age). I think that promoting environmentalism in terms of it being a means to saving ourselves might be more effective than appeals to "save the rapidly dying $ENDANGERED_SPECIES".

adamnemecek 10y ago

Now that we've rephrased the problem, what does it mean moving forward?

debacle 10y ago
That not every person choosing to be ecologically responsible is the tree-hugging, job killing, PETA strawman, for one.
- adamnemecek 10y ago
  Was there such an implication?
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    Culturally, yes. It doesn't matter if that was the reality or not, the cultural narratives that surround environmentalism do have an effect on who takes part, which means overcoming personal prejudice is part of the movement towards a greener future.

wuschel 10y ago

Spot on. Once the food chain collapses, primates and many other higher life forms will be in peril.

moufestaphio 10y ago

George Carlin had a good bit on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVE-efyv2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdVE-efyv2c

dkarapetyan 10y ago
That's indeed pretty good. Thanks for the link.

almostApatriot1 10y ago

This type of response is intentionally obtuse. By 'planet' people mean the planet's ecosystems. By the time humans are in danger, 90%+ of other species will probably be long gone.

_qc3o 10y ago
So? The planet has also gone through several extinction events. The white knighting ain't helping anyone. Obtuse or not.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  His obtuseness point is that you know exactly what he means by protecting the planet, but you chose to interpret that phrase literally.
  - jogjayr 10y ago
    > but you chose to interpret that phrase literally. But when we're dealing with geological timescales I think a literal interpretation may be the right way of looking at it. Would it be sad if 90% of Earth's species died off? Certainly, if there were any humans around to do the mourning. But zooming out a bit, the current die-off isn't anything new. There have been mass extinctions and rapid alterations of climate and atmosphere in the Earth's past too. Humans originated on this planet and we are a part of the ecosystem. In a way, anything we do to nature is simply one part of nature being wildly out of equilibrium. If we mess it up, it'll mean curtains for us but life itself will march on. In 10-50 million years after we're gone, there will arise lifeforms that are just as interesting and varied as anything we have now. Which, on a geological timescale, really isn't that long (between 0.0025% and 0.0125% of the Earth's age). I think that promoting environmentalism in terms of it being a means to saving ourselves might be more effective than appeals to "save the rapidly dying $ENDANGERED_SPECIES".