4 ms·

> We don't save the earth for the earth. We save it for ourselves. I was hoping that we were trying to save it (from us!) because this is simply the right thin

by richev 7y ago

> We don't save the earth for the earth. We save it for ourselves. I was hoping that we were trying to save it (from us!) because this is simply the right thing to do.

noonespecial 7y ago
Not trying to be the least bit facetious: What makes it the right thing to do?
- toss1 7y ago
  For starters: What says that we have more right to liver here, take the air, water and other resources than any of the other clearly sentient & intelligent beings among whom we live? I have a hard time finding any good answers to that question that do not boil down to <might makes right>, i.e., we're more intelligent, capable, etc., so screw all the other animals and plants (upon which, BTW, our continued existence depends). So, from an ethical POV, mere consideration of the other beings makes it hge right thing to do. Even if we want to save it for only ourselves, we need to wise up damn fast. Look at the list starting with AGW shifting the climate faster than any time since the asteroid 65MM yrs ago (& now showing serious signs of runaway feed-forward effects), plastic debris and microplastics choking the food chain on sea and land, neonicotinid pesticides destroying the insect population & especially pollinators at well into double digit levels, monoculture industrial agriculture, massive habitat destruction... the list goes on and on. The result is that we are likely getting dangerously close to breaking the food web. When that happens (even without war) there will only be a few survivors, if any, and they likely not consider themselves lucky. So, even if only for selfish motives, merely acting like it is right to preserve the earth's biosphere, is the right thing to do.
  - noonespecial 7y ago
    >What says that we have more right to liver here, take the air, water and other resources than any of the other clearly sentient & intelligent beings among whom we live? Nature does. In the same way it gave wolves the right to eat rabbits. By providing us with the indisputable power to do so. It also gave us the ability to choose: We can live a tiny existence as a species, completely eschewing any and all anthropological climate impact until we are eventually extincted by natural climate change just as every other species that ever lived on this planet was or will be. Or we can consume the entire world in a few generations in a desperate bid to show each other the maximum number ads for ephemeral crap that doesn't matter at all. Or something in the middle. I personally vote for the careful, intentional consumption of most of this world to further human sentience and aid it in expanding into the universe. (And grieve for the fact that we seem to be irreversibly choosing the "ads" option when either of the others would seem much more preferable.)
    - toss1 7y ago
      >> ...that do not boil down to <might makes right>? >> Nature does. In the same way it gave wolves the right to eat rabbits. By providing us with the indisputable power to do so. So, how, exactly does that not boil down to <might makes right>? I'm also generally for your Option 3, but looking at it realistically, we're quite fully committed to Option 2, consuming the entire world in a few generations. Short of a massive global Marshal Plan level effort to eradicate poverty, educate everyone, and provide contraception so that every locale goes well below replacement reproduction (or a bio-engineered highly contagious virus that causes infertility), I see vastly insufficient efforts to put us on an even sustainable track. And the problem is that when resources are exhausted to , e.g., a level 10% below what will sustain a polulation, it isn't a 10% die-off, but more like a 90% die-off, since almost all are under the sustainable level. We break hte food web, and we'll likely be part of the mass extinction. But everyone has normalcy bias, so, enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.
      - noonespecial 7y ago
        So, how, exactly does that not boil down to <might makes right>? It boils down exactly to might makes right, also know as "natural law". Everything else brings the argument into religious territory by assuming an absolute moral standard. (Which is fine by the way, as long as we explicitly call it out and argue from it in a consistent manner - and understand that we are crossing the border of science and philosophy when we do)
        toss1 7y ago
        Actually, we can look to many studies of pre-linguistic children, primates, and birds showing that ALL of them show a significantly developed sense of fairness. We can also look to vast quantities of documented examples of altruistic behavior in studies far "down" the animal scale. There is substantial theory growing that religious and moral attitudes, cultural structures, and laws emerged from these innate qualities, rather than being some human invention. Here's an article on just two: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/true-altruism-seen-chimpanzees-giving-clues-evolution-human-cooperation https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/true-altruism-seen-c... So, this "natural law" that you posit at the top/root of all behavior evaluation is actually quite shaky, and it is not at all clear that it has the priority you claim. It looks far more like a justification for might being right. By that standard, it'd be ok for me to steal your pay, enslave you, or simply kill you for the $10 in your pocket if merely had the means & whim, with all concerns about fairness, ethics, morality, relegated to the minor realm of "religious territory". Yet even a chimp, dog, elephant, or dolphin would know that it's wrong.

by richev 7y ago

> We don't save the earth for the earth. We save it for ourselves. I was hoping that we were trying to save it (from us!) because this is simply the right thing to do.

noonespecial 7y ago

Not trying to be the least bit facetious: What makes it the right thing to do?

toss1 7y ago
For starters: What says that we have more right to liver here, take the air, water and other resources than any of the other clearly sentient & intelligent beings among whom we live? I have a hard time finding any good answers to that question that do not boil down to <might makes right>, i.e., we're more intelligent, capable, etc., so screw all the other animals and plants (upon which, BTW, our continued existence depends). So, from an ethical POV, mere consideration of the other beings makes it hge right thing to do. Even if we want to save it for only ourselves, we need to wise up damn fast. Look at the list starting with AGW shifting the climate faster than any time since the asteroid 65MM yrs ago (& now showing serious signs of runaway feed-forward effects), plastic debris and microplastics choking the food chain on sea and land, neonicotinid pesticides destroying the insect population & especially pollinators at well into double digit levels, monoculture industrial agriculture, massive habitat destruction... the list goes on and on. The result is that we are likely getting dangerously close to breaking the food web. When that happens (even without war) there will only be a few survivors, if any, and they likely not consider themselves lucky. So, even if only for selfish motives, merely acting like it is right to preserve the earth's biosphere, is the right thing to do.
- noonespecial 7y ago
  >What says that we have more right to liver here, take the air, water and other resources than any of the other clearly sentient & intelligent beings among whom we live? Nature does. In the same way it gave wolves the right to eat rabbits. By providing us with the indisputable power to do so. It also gave us the ability to choose: We can live a tiny existence as a species, completely eschewing any and all anthropological climate impact until we are eventually extincted by natural climate change just as every other species that ever lived on this planet was or will be. Or we can consume the entire world in a few generations in a desperate bid to show each other the maximum number ads for ephemeral crap that doesn't matter at all. Or something in the middle. I personally vote for the careful, intentional consumption of most of this world to further human sentience and aid it in expanding into the universe. (And grieve for the fact that we seem to be irreversibly choosing the "ads" option when either of the others would seem much more preferable.)
  - toss1 7y ago
    >> ...that do not boil down to <might makes right>? >> Nature does. In the same way it gave wolves the right to eat rabbits. By providing us with the indisputable power to do so. So, how, exactly does that not boil down to <might makes right>? I'm also generally for your Option 3, but looking at it realistically, we're quite fully committed to Option 2, consuming the entire world in a few generations. Short of a massive global Marshal Plan level effort to eradicate poverty, educate everyone, and provide contraception so that every locale goes well below replacement reproduction (or a bio-engineered highly contagious virus that causes infertility), I see vastly insufficient efforts to put us on an even sustainable track. And the problem is that when resources are exhausted to , e.g., a level 10% below what will sustain a polulation, it isn't a 10% die-off, but more like a 90% die-off, since almost all are under the sustainable level. We break hte food web, and we'll likely be part of the mass extinction. But everyone has normalcy bias, so, enjoy it while it lasts, I guess.
    - noonespecial 7y ago
      So, how, exactly does that not boil down to <might makes right>? It boils down exactly to might makes right, also know as "natural law". Everything else brings the argument into religious territory by assuming an absolute moral standard. (Which is fine by the way, as long as we explicitly call it out and argue from it in a consistent manner - and understand that we are crossing the border of science and philosophy when we do)
      - toss1 7y ago
        Actually, we can look to many studies of pre-linguistic children, primates, and birds showing that ALL of them show a significantly developed sense of fairness. We can also look to vast quantities of documented examples of altruistic behavior in studies far "down" the animal scale. There is substantial theory growing that religious and moral attitudes, cultural structures, and laws emerged from these innate qualities, rather than being some human invention. Here's an article on just two: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/true-altruism-seen-chimpanzees-giving-clues-evolution-human-cooperation https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/true-altruism-seen-c... So, this "natural law" that you posit at the top/root of all behavior evaluation is actually quite shaky, and it is not at all clear that it has the priority you claim. It looks far more like a justification for might being right. By that standard, it'd be ok for me to steal your pay, enslave you, or simply kill you for the $10 in your pocket if merely had the means & whim, with all concerns about fairness, ethics, morality, relegated to the minor realm of "religious territory". Yet even a chimp, dog, elephant, or dolphin would know that it's wrong.