5 ms·
I don't mean this to criticize attempts at personal responsibility when it comes to sustainability, but I think we are far past the point of no return. Short o
by protonimitate 8y ago
I don't mean this to criticize attempts at personal responsibility when it comes to sustainability, but I think we are far past the point of no return.
Short of a massive population decrease, a complete switch in energy consumption, or some sci-fi type of technological breakthrough, we are doomed to run this planet into extinction.
At this point, most conservation efforts are more of a attempt to feel better as an individual then they are actually making a difference.
That doesn't mean we should stop, or concede, with our efforts. It just means we need to be realistic with what we do over the next 50-100 years.
Personally, I think the only way the human race will continue to thrive is to figure out how to survive without the Earth as a host. Whether we figure that out, or succumb to extinction, is really the ultimate test of our race. Were we designed to be a part of nature as it exists on Earth, or will we surpass it?
- lawrenceyan 8y agoYou underestimate the depths human ingenuity.
- xapata 8y agoOn the other hand, you might be underestimating the depths of human myopia.
- optimuspaul 8y agoI was going to say apathy.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ant6n 8y agoAll feasible measures should be implemented simultaneously. Colonizing space seems like the least likely solution.
- InclinedPlane 8y agoThis is a defeatist and ahistorical attitude. We've brought species back from near extinction, we've brought entire biomes back from near destruction, we've made the air and water cleaner, we've saved the ozone layer, etc, etc, etc. We know how to do these things, it doesn't require magic or impossibly futuristic technology or excessive personal sacrifice. It's just work. All we have to do is do the work.
- protonimitate 8y agoTo be clear, I don't think sustainability efforts are a waste of time. I'm more curious about what our path as a species will lead to - will we continuously innovate to survive on the planet we were given, or will we move past it? Both? I don't think we're doomed.
- oldcynic 8y agoWe've forced species so near to extinction that they need to be "brought back", we've had such a profound effect on the environment that there is essentially nowhere left that does not show the impact of humankind. We've made the air and water cleaner in highly specific ways whilst continuing to pollute globally and watch the developing world repeat our mistakes on a larger scale. We saved the ozone layer yet have thus far done nothing substantive as far as carbon is concerned. We've diligently avoided any serious discussion of population pressure on the planet. We know how to do these things, we know how to avoid the mistakes of the past. Yet we are not doing them. How do you propose getting the international community to do that work?
- yongjik 8y agoSure, maybe it's too late to save half of all frog species, but what we do in the next 100 years will determine whether there will be elephants and gorillas 1000 years later. It's not too late for them.
- francisofascii 8y agoWhat about devoting a large portion of the economy to environmental restoration. Humans have certainly trashed the planet, but humans certainly have the intellect to undo the damage.
- protonimitate 8y agoThis could actually be feasible. Maybe an alternative to jobs taken by automation could be more conservation/environmental efforts.