3 ms·
Given the sheer number of people who might die or have reduced lifespans due to a collapse, it's a meaningless distinction.
by jogjayr 8y ago
Given the sheer number of people who might die or have reduced lifespans due to a collapse, it's a meaningless distinction.
- newnewpdro 8y agoIt's not a meaningless distinction at all. The collapse is the imbalanced system naturally correcting itself, and the humans who survive will go on to create more and the cycle repeats. Extinction means no more cycles for humans. Your view strikes me as a very my-generation me-centric attitude, focused on the sheer numbers of people living now vs. future generations.
- jogjayr 8y agoI don't understand the point you're trying to make. To me it sounds like you're saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) "Worrying about the massive human misery caused by ecosystem collapse is a selfish concern. Humans as a species will continue to exist." The second statement is technically true. But I don't understand how we can diminish the massive human misery caused to everyone you and I know.
- esarbe 8y agoWill they? Continue to exist? I'm not very certain about that. How would any human survive an ecosystem collapse? How would they sustain themselves? With technology that runs without any power, can be repaired without any specialized knowledge and operated without training? Because, you know, the ecosystem just collapsed and everybody not struggling for survival in a world unable to produce food is probably already dead. I'm not so sure at all.