4 ms·

It is my opinion that one's time is better spent preventing the collapse of civilization than preparing for it.

• zeamaize 10y ago
  That ship seems to have already sailed.
  • zyxzkz 10y ago
    Yes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5guXaWwQpe4
  • m3rc 10y ago
    If you're seriously convinced structure has already passed the point of no-return what are you doing commenting here on some internet site?
    • duozerk 10y ago
      Not the person you're responding to but being convinced that modern civilization is doomed - even if you're convinced it'll collapse during your own lifetime - doesn't preclude you from enjoying all of its benefits (like the Internet). If anything, it makes you more likely to enjoy them "while they last".
      • m3rc 10y ago
        What you meant to say is that you're finding a philosophy that lets you act like everyone else but keep being the edgy kid in the back of the class everyone else rolls their eyes at.
        • duozerk 10y ago
          What an extremely toxic comment.
        • imesh 10y ago
          If you want it to be edgy to think that environmental changes and running out of resources is really happening than you can think that's edgy. I think it's more stupid to not acknowledge that this is happening.
• jessriedel 10y ago
  That's certainly the altruistic choice. But it would be foolishly arrogant for anyone, even Bill Gates, to think they had more controllable influence on the fate of the world than they do on their own safety.
  • erikpukinskis 10y ago
    The probability of you having significant controlled influence on the fate of the world is much higher than the probability of total meltdown of society necessitating a stockpile of guns and bunkers and your preparations having a significant controlled influence on your experience of it. So no, focusing on the actual problems is actually less foolish than "doomsday prepping".
    • jessriedel 10y ago
      Significant controlled influence on the world at large that leads back to a detectable benefit you? Not a chance. The probability of societal meltdown is small, but it's larger than any of our individual impacts. Heck, just the risk of meltdown through accidental nuclear war (easily 0.1%/century, and arguably at least 10 or 100 times that) is already large enough. This is a question of altruism, or of whether all of these possibilities are too small to be worth spending spending time on.
      • erikpukinskis 10y ago
        Why do you think it is so unlikely that you could do some good in your community that would come back to you in a way that makes your own life more stable? I am pretty sure there are lots of people in my city who are watching my back because of kindnesses I have extended.
        • jessriedel 10y ago
          We're talking about civilization / the world, not your local community.