3 ms·
You just said it yourself. It's irrelevant whether the mechanism of action is direct or indirect. Collapse of the ecosystems that sustain us will accelerate pro
by Daishiman 7y ago
You just said it yourself. It's irrelevant whether the mechanism of action is direct or indirect. Collapse of the ecosystems that sustain us will accelerate processes that dramatically increase the likelihood of catastrophic events.
The semantic game of whether it's "human extinction" or "the end of organized large-scale human civilization" is stupid and grasping at straws.
- radford-neal 7y ago> It's irrelevant whether the mechanism of action is direct or indirect. If you take that view, then practically everything is an "existential threat". Wars have been triggered by soccer games... As for whether "existential threat" means "human extinction" - well what else would "existential" refer to other than human existence? Again, if you broaden this, then practically anything could be an "existential threat" - to democracy, say. And it's pretty clear that the people screaming "existential threat" intend for people to take it as meaning human existinction - the naive people at least.