3 ms·
Well, I mean, that person serving the food would still exist and respirate and consumer even if they had a different job. The slippery slope of "humans cause ca
by acidburnNSA 7y ago
Well, I mean, that person serving the food would still exist and respirate and consumer even if they had a different job. The slippery slope of "humans cause carbon emissions" quickly descends to some Malthusian debates which basically end up as "Thanos did nothing wrong".
- dTal 7y agoIt's true though - saying the person serving food would still exist if you didn't order the meal is like saying that someone else will burn that gasoline if you don't. It's true, but it doesn't absolve you from responsibility. You're still creating demand and contributing in some fractional way to the problem. The logical endpoint of "humans inevitably cause catastrophic destruction" doesn't have to be "kill all humans" though. It could be, "make sure we're worth it". Can we build a society so amazing, so transcendent, that it was worth the destruction of our ancestral ecosystems? If so, then let's get cracking. If not, well then yes, maybe then we really ought to be thinking about suicide.