5 ms·

> 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 mean

by 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.
  - phkahler 8y ago
    >> That's because you're categorizing your opponent into a known bucket... I actually assessed my opponent as someone who has it in for mankind, not an environmentalist (that's your word BTW and doesn't belong in quotes you attribute to me). My point wasn't so much "nature does it to" but rather to illustrate - humans are part of nature and their behavior is not unique. To keep us separate from nature seems to be either human-hating or human-aggrandizing. Given the OPs calling us assholes I figure we can guess which. From there I was most definitely having more fun than trying to making a point!
- xtian 8y ago
  > Having said that, it would be in our long term interest not to continue doing this until the system collapses. You’ve stumbled through the straw men and into the point, my dude. The way of thinking which frames humans as “best animals” is the same one which makes us incapable of averting suicide by ecological collapse. Consciousness is not just a cool survival trick, it’s a responsibility.
  - perl4ever 8y ago
    Consciousness is not a collective attribute of humans. I find it strange that people have discussions in which some sort of collective consciousness is implicitly assumed. You're arguing, so you're obviously individuals! If we had a collective mind, we wouldn't be disagreeing. It's as though we were a bunch of single cells arguing about whether we should become a multicellular life form to avoid us all dying. It might in theory be necessary, but it would involve all members giving up autonomy and being willing to act and die on command. That raises two questions - is it really worth it, and is it possible? I'm not firmly pro or con organizing humanity into a "super organism" to avoid ecological disaster - I'm just saying this is what people are ultimately debating wrt global warming, and it's pretty "out there". I'm not convinced it's feasible, at least not in the near future (next century).
    - xtian 8y ago
      What?
LMYahooTFY 8y ago
How are humans not part of the animal kingdom? What are we if not a specialized animal? Birds and ants don't reach a "natural equilibrium". They, and all other species, simply (and similarly) exhaust what their habitat will sustain in one way or another, just as humans do. Almost all the species that ever existed went extinct without the help of humans.
- titzer 8y ago
  > Birds and ants don't reach a "natural equilibrium". They, and all other species, simply (and similarly) exhaust what their habitat will sustain in one way or another, just as humans do. No, not really. These ecosystems adapt to change very, very slowly, and birds and ants very gently come up against the carrying capacity of their surrounding environment, and when they exceed that carrying capacity, their populations cease to grow and may waver, but will reach some equilibrium. They generally do not experience extreme boom and busts, except in extreme cases of invasive species and rapid climate change. They also don't have a tendency to cause mass destruction that takes down the environment around them. The difference with humans is that we use technology and agriculture to continually boost ourselves past the carrying capacity of our local environment, and when that becomes unsustainable--usually wreaking havoc all around us, we move on and spread. Just look throughout history. The pattern repeats over and over. If birds and ants had the same cycle, they would not have survived hundreds of millions of years like they have. People just do not understand that our growth rates are so high that they are effectively alien to this planet. So, no, this is not "normal" or "natural" IMO.
  - drak0n1c 8y ago
    Humans don't come close to approaching the largest biologically-caused extinction events. Cyanobacteria wiped out most other species on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Birds caused mass extinctions and extreme evolutionary pressures: https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html Trilobites - one of the most diverse, plentiful, and advanced forms of life at the time - went extinct thanks to the evolution of plants. It is very anthropocentric to view the preservation of the ecological status quo and cessation of evolutionary pressures as a "natural" ideal. Yes, we have a drive to consume and exploit but our desire to preserve what we see as beautiful is no different - it's all just a product of our desires. I am not opposed to environmentalism - but we shouldn't tell lies about what is natural for life by cherrypicking examples of equilibrium and ignoring the trillions of extinct. The equilibrium you see in other species (ants, birds) only exists due the destruction of countless other species long before humans ever showed up. Just like the stable equilibrium between humans, cockroaches, and pigeons.
lopmotr 8y ago
Humans did reach equilibrium before the industrial revolution which allowed for exponential population growth that's only now starting to slow. It just looks like we never have it because we're in a growth phase right now. In future, we'll have to reach equilibrium again as we're constrained by resources or we enjoy our own lives more than we want to make babies. Predictions I've seen are for a maximum of 12 billion people. New species introduced into an ecosystem often wipe out existing species as they grow. It's happened on lots of islands. They eventually reach equilibrium too. It's quite normal and humans aren't special in that regard. We just happen to be the best at it right now. There is some emotion in your statements. The reason we want to protect the environment is because it has value to humans. It doesn't somehow deserve to be saved independently of us any more than an asteroid deserves to stay floating in space without crashing into any planets. If we can truly and permanently survive OK without as many species, then what's the harm in making them extinct besides emotion? Adding my own emotional opinion, I think humans really do deserve to dominate everything because we're absolutely the most incredible species ever to live on Earth. Through technology, we've giving ourselves more and more of the abilities of other animals. We can live in environments too hot, cold, or arid for any single other species. We can fly and "swim" across oceans, and even make meat for eating! If evolution had some sort of purpose, it would surely be to create the most capable organisms possible. So far, that's us and every species we wipe out deserved to go because it lost the game of evolution in the same way the poor soccer teams deserve to not win the World Cup.
drak0n1c 8y ago
Humans don't come close to approaching the largest biologically-caused extinction events. Cyanobacteria wiped out most other species on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Birds caused mass extinctions and extreme evolutionary pressures: https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html Trilobites - one of the most diverse, plentiful, and advanced forms of life at the time - went extinct thanks to the evolution of plants. If you take a snapshot during any of those events, a brief glimpse, sure those events were cataclysmically destructive. But step back and those events can instead be seen as fantastically creative. It is anthropocentric to view the preservation of the ecological status quo and cessation of evolutionary pressures as a "natural" ideal. Humans like things that make life easy, but we also don't like change. I am not opposed to environmentalism and imposing our curated view - but it shouldn't be guilt-ridden. We shouldn't tell lies about what is natural for life by cherrypicking examples of equilibrium and ignoring the trillions of extinct. The equilibrium you see in other species (ants, birds) only exists due the destruction of countless other species. Akin to an alien observing the seemingly stable equilibrium between humans, cockroaches, and pigeons. Life survived despite incredible climate pressures and invasive species in the past - far more extreme than what is happening now - and reached new levels of complexity thanks to those pressures. There's no reason that will stop.

by titzer 8y ago

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.
- phkahler 8y ago
  >> That's because you're categorizing your opponent into a known bucket... I actually assessed my opponent as someone who has it in for mankind, not an environmentalist (that's your word BTW and doesn't belong in quotes you attribute to me). My point wasn't so much "nature does it to" but rather to illustrate - humans are part of nature and their behavior is not unique. To keep us separate from nature seems to be either human-hating or human-aggrandizing. Given the OPs calling us assholes I figure we can guess which. From there I was most definitely having more fun than trying to making a point!
xtian 8y ago
> Having said that, it would be in our long term interest not to continue doing this until the system collapses. You’ve stumbled through the straw men and into the point, my dude. The way of thinking which frames humans as “best animals” is the same one which makes us incapable of averting suicide by ecological collapse. Consciousness is not just a cool survival trick, it’s a responsibility.
- perl4ever 8y ago
  Consciousness is not a collective attribute of humans. I find it strange that people have discussions in which some sort of collective consciousness is implicitly assumed. You're arguing, so you're obviously individuals! If we had a collective mind, we wouldn't be disagreeing. It's as though we were a bunch of single cells arguing about whether we should become a multicellular life form to avoid us all dying. It might in theory be necessary, but it would involve all members giving up autonomy and being willing to act and die on command. That raises two questions - is it really worth it, and is it possible? I'm not firmly pro or con organizing humanity into a "super organism" to avoid ecological disaster - I'm just saying this is what people are ultimately debating wrt global warming, and it's pretty "out there". I'm not convinced it's feasible, at least not in the near future (next century).
  - xtian 8y ago
    What?

LMYahooTFY 8y ago

How are humans not part of the animal kingdom? What are we if not a specialized animal? Birds and ants don't reach a "natural equilibrium". They, and all other species, simply (and similarly) exhaust what their habitat will sustain in one way or another, just as humans do. Almost all the species that ever existed went extinct without the help of humans.

titzer 8y ago
> Birds and ants don't reach a "natural equilibrium". They, and all other species, simply (and similarly) exhaust what their habitat will sustain in one way or another, just as humans do. No, not really. These ecosystems adapt to change very, very slowly, and birds and ants very gently come up against the carrying capacity of their surrounding environment, and when they exceed that carrying capacity, their populations cease to grow and may waver, but will reach some equilibrium. They generally do not experience extreme boom and busts, except in extreme cases of invasive species and rapid climate change. They also don't have a tendency to cause mass destruction that takes down the environment around them. The difference with humans is that we use technology and agriculture to continually boost ourselves past the carrying capacity of our local environment, and when that becomes unsustainable--usually wreaking havoc all around us, we move on and spread. Just look throughout history. The pattern repeats over and over. If birds and ants had the same cycle, they would not have survived hundreds of millions of years like they have. People just do not understand that our growth rates are so high that they are effectively alien to this planet. So, no, this is not "normal" or "natural" IMO.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Humans don't come close to approaching the largest biologically-caused extinction events. Cyanobacteria wiped out most other species on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Birds caused mass extinctions and extreme evolutionary pressures: https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html Trilobites - one of the most diverse, plentiful, and advanced forms of life at the time - went extinct thanks to the evolution of plants. It is very anthropocentric to view the preservation of the ecological status quo and cessation of evolutionary pressures as a "natural" ideal. Yes, we have a drive to consume and exploit but our desire to preserve what we see as beautiful is no different - it's all just a product of our desires. I am not opposed to environmentalism - but we shouldn't tell lies about what is natural for life by cherrypicking examples of equilibrium and ignoring the trillions of extinct. The equilibrium you see in other species (ants, birds) only exists due the destruction of countless other species long before humans ever showed up. Just like the stable equilibrium between humans, cockroaches, and pigeons.

lopmotr 8y ago

Humans did reach equilibrium before the industrial revolution which allowed for exponential population growth that's only now starting to slow. It just looks like we never have it because we're in a growth phase right now. In future, we'll have to reach equilibrium again as we're constrained by resources or we enjoy our own lives more than we want to make babies. Predictions I've seen are for a maximum of 12 billion people. New species introduced into an ecosystem often wipe out existing species as they grow. It's happened on lots of islands. They eventually reach equilibrium too. It's quite normal and humans aren't special in that regard. We just happen to be the best at it right now. There is some emotion in your statements. The reason we want to protect the environment is because it has value to humans. It doesn't somehow deserve to be saved independently of us any more than an asteroid deserves to stay floating in space without crashing into any planets. If we can truly and permanently survive OK without as many species, then what's the harm in making them extinct besides emotion? Adding my own emotional opinion, I think humans really do deserve to dominate everything because we're absolutely the most incredible species ever to live on Earth. Through technology, we've giving ourselves more and more of the abilities of other animals. We can live in environments too hot, cold, or arid for any single other species. We can fly and "swim" across oceans, and even make meat for eating! If evolution had some sort of purpose, it would surely be to create the most capable organisms possible. So far, that's us and every species we wipe out deserved to go because it lost the game of evolution in the same way the poor soccer teams deserve to not win the World Cup.

drak0n1c 8y ago

Humans don't come close to approaching the largest biologically-caused extinction events. Cyanobacteria wiped out most other species on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event Birds caused mass extinctions and extreme evolutionary pressures: https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html https://news.ucsc.edu/2012/06/giant-insects.html Trilobites - one of the most diverse, plentiful, and advanced forms of life at the time - went extinct thanks to the evolution of plants. If you take a snapshot during any of those events, a brief glimpse, sure those events were cataclysmically destructive. But step back and those events can instead be seen as fantastically creative. It is anthropocentric to view the preservation of the ecological status quo and cessation of evolutionary pressures as a "natural" ideal. Humans like things that make life easy, but we also don't like change. I am not opposed to environmentalism and imposing our curated view - but it shouldn't be guilt-ridden. We shouldn't tell lies about what is natural for life by cherrypicking examples of equilibrium and ignoring the trillions of extinct. The equilibrium you see in other species (ants, birds) only exists due the destruction of countless other species. Akin to an alien observing the seemingly stable equilibrium between humans, cockroaches, and pigeons. Life survived despite incredible climate pressures and invasive species in the past - far more extreme than what is happening now - and reached new levels of complexity thanks to those pressures. There's no reason that will stop.