6 ms·

"Under an accounting system based on emotions and feelings" Fixed that for you. We're nothing more than an extremely specialized animal. What we do is (whethe

"Under an accounting system based on emotions and feelings" Fixed that for you. We're nothing more than an extremely specialized animal. What we do is (whether you like it or not) a product of nature. Our use of technology is just the large-scale version of a bird's nest, or an ant pile. We've done far less damage than the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. Deal with it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throwaway413 8y ago
Except that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs didn’t rely on the environment (or the dinosaurs even) to survive.
usrusr 8y ago
The problem is that we are not specialized, we are adaptive. If we were specialized, we would ruin one particular biome through overpopulation, starve a little and eventually reach equilibrium. But we are adaptive, we will keep adapting and consuming until there is nothing left. Almost like a paperclip maximiser, but for food and amenities instead of paperclips.
- nine_k 8y ago
  This is what all life us. Look at bacteria. They are also crazily adaptable. The do it by changing their DNA and a very high speed of generational change, and we use "culture" and "science" with longer individual lifespans.
ams6110 8y ago
And, we recognize what we are doing as our technology advances, and we adjust to do what we think is better for our environment. No other animals do that. There's no undoing the past, and to feel angry or bitter about it doesn't help anything.
titzer 8y ago
> Fixed that for you. Sorry, no. Please don't fix any more of my comments. That's really passive aggressive and demeaning and you can do better. I really meant it. Under essentially any accounting system that is not human-centric at its core, we are really tops when it comes to destruction. Birds and ants reach a natural equilibrium with their environment and end up as integral parts of a functioning ecosystem. Humans. Just. Don't. We nuke and pave. Stupidly. Overfishing is just one example, a tiny one. We exhaust all available resources in an area and if we're lucky enough to survive the inevitable ecosystem collapse that we leave in our wake, we move on, either up or out or over, and exhaust all of those resources, too. If you really think we are equivalent to ants and birds, and we're just some kind of specialized animal, then I'm not sure we share the same basis for dialogue. Please step back from the personal afront that you feel by my comment and behold the destruction that humans have wrought. It is incalculable. There is a reason they are calling this the Anthropocene.
- phkahler 8y ago
  A hawk that eats a cute baby bunny is an asshole too right? My cat when it knocks over a bunch of stuff in the house chasing a mouse creates a local environmental mess. Humans are just better at this stuff than anything that's come before. Bacteria will consume all the food in a dish until their ecosystem collapses. Algae blooms happen and do the same thing. Again, humans are just doing this better and on a larger scale. Having said that, it would be in our long term interest not to continue doing this until the system collapses.
  - CobrastanJorji 8y ago
    You're responding to an imagined foe. See how you go with a "nature does it too, you're an environmentalist that wants to protect cute widdle animals" angle? That's because you're categorizing your opponent into a known bucket without actually pausing to consider their argument. This is a good way to efficiently comment on social media, but this style of dialogue will never either convince them that they're wrong or convince you that you're wrong. All it will do is reinforce itself by giving your brain a brief jolt of self-satisfaction.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

throwaway413 8y ago

Except that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs didn’t rely on the environment (or the dinosaurs even) to survive.

usrusr 8y ago

The problem is that we are not specialized, we are adaptive. If we were specialized, we would ruin one particular biome through overpopulation, starve a little and eventually reach equilibrium. But we are adaptive, we will keep adapting and consuming until there is nothing left. Almost like a paperclip maximiser, but for food and amenities instead of paperclips.

nine_k 8y ago
This is what all life us. Look at bacteria. They are also crazily adaptable. The do it by changing their DNA and a very high speed of generational change, and we use "culture" and "science" with longer individual lifespans.

ams6110 8y ago

And, we recognize what we are doing as our technology advances, and we adjust to do what we think is better for our environment. No other animals do that. There's no undoing the past, and to feel angry or bitter about it doesn't help anything.

titzer 8y ago

> Fixed that for you. Sorry, no. Please don't fix any more of my comments. That's really passive aggressive and demeaning and you can do better. I really meant it. Under essentially any accounting system that is not human-centric at its core, we are really tops when it comes to destruction. Birds and ants reach a natural equilibrium with their environment and end up as integral parts of a functioning ecosystem. Humans. Just. Don't. We nuke and pave. Stupidly. Overfishing is just one example, a tiny one. We exhaust all available resources in an area and if we're lucky enough to survive the inevitable ecosystem collapse that we leave in our wake, we move on, either up or out or over, and exhaust all of those resources, too. If you really think we are equivalent to ants and birds, and we're just some kind of specialized animal, then I'm not sure we share the same basis for dialogue. Please step back from the personal afront that you feel by my comment and behold the destruction that humans have wrought. It is incalculable. There is a reason they are calling this the Anthropocene.

phkahler 8y ago
A hawk that eats a cute baby bunny is an asshole too right? My cat when it knocks over a bunch of stuff in the house chasing a mouse creates a local environmental mess. Humans are just better at this stuff than anything that's come before. Bacteria will consume all the food in a dish until their ecosystem collapses. Algae blooms happen and do the same thing. Again, humans are just doing this better and on a larger scale. Having said that, it would be in our long term interest not to continue doing this until the system collapses.
- CobrastanJorji 8y ago
  You're responding to an imagined foe. See how you go with a "nature does it too, you're an environmentalist that wants to protect cute widdle animals" angle? That's because you're categorizing your opponent into a known bucket without actually pausing to consider their argument. This is a good way to efficiently comment on social media, but this style of dialogue will never either convince them that they're wrong or convince you that you're wrong. All it will do is reinforce itself by giving your brain a brief jolt of self-satisfaction.