4 ms·

Many people do not care remotely about the lives of others that they can't conceptualize. I'm increasingly worried that large segments of the population will n

by MiroF 6y ago

Many people do not care remotely about the lives of others that they can't conceptualize. I'm increasingly worried that large segments of the population will not be reached by that message or any message that isn't about direct harm to themselves or their loved ones.

bonestamp2 6y ago
On that note, I always knew we were the problem, but this reminds me of something I heard that changed the way I thought about it... If aliens were flying past our planet and saw all of our concrete and deforestation from space, they'd assume we're an unstoppable virus that will destroy the ecosystem if a cure is not found. That perspective hit me in a way, at a scale, that I have never thought about before. We see many of our actions as "development" which tends to have a positive meaning, but from space that same "development" looks like a disease that is overrunning the planet. A little further out there, but if other intelligent life exists and they saw us as a virus, they might try to cure the planet by eradicating us.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > A little further out there, but if other intelligent life exists and they saw us as a virus, they might try to cure the planet by eradicating us. Which would be awful, as we can all agree.
  - bonestamp2 6y ago
    Yes, sorry. It would be awful. The implication was that we should turn things around before that could ever be the conclusion another lifeform might come to.
    - kzrdude 6y ago
      Seems like a damn hasty conclusion anyway. We have reason to judge the health of human civilization above other factors, but what grounds do they have with an outside perspective? What's right and wrong for this planet, or for us, from their alien perspective? Why would they sympathize with, say, the dolphins instead of us (they might - for random reasons?)
      - bonestamp2 6y ago
        > Why would they sympathize with, say, the dolphins instead of us (they might - for random reasons?) It wouldn't necessarily be random, it could just be math. If any being looked at any ecosystem objectively, and they see 1 species making that ecosystem worse for 8.7 million other species, then it might seem obvious to side with the 8.7 million other species. Is it ethical to eradicate 1 species to save 8.7 million others? Well, now we've got a classic trolley problem on our hands. They could keep on flying and do nothing, or they could intervene. Not everyone will agree on the ethical choice.
        kzrdude 6y ago
        Objectively, why intervene? We are life that came from this planet, and this is unfortunately the "natural" course of life of this planet right now :) It's true, that they might be into "gardening" and want to shape the planet they pass by to their aesthetics and values, but it's hard to guess what they are, and it's not objective. I appreciate the discussion of this.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  If aliens flew by on a space ship then how the hell do you think they manufactured the materials for the space ship? Maybe they've got entire planets devoted to manufacturing. It's rather absurd to think about. This is an incredibly toxic point of view.
  - bonestamp2 6y ago
    > how the hell do you think they manufactured the materials for the space ship? I'm not saying we shouldn't develop anything, or that aliens can't develop one spaceship sustainably. The point is that we've done a lot of harm and very few people are trying to turn it around. I'm part of the problem too. I need to be better, and we can amplify each other's efforts if we all work together and build the tools and resources that make it easier for everyone to do better. > This is an incredibly toxic point of view. I disagree. The most toxic view point is literally the one that ignores how unsustainable we have become and how toxic that is for the planet, and our future on it.
- efreak 6y ago
  Regarding development: I've had a growing belief lately that capitalism (local) isn't the worst thing about global economy. Rather, the global economy itself is what's bad. We shouldn't be comparing countries based on GDP, and money shouldn't be used as a proxy for success. Rather, we should find some way to measure the success of regions and people independently (ie, how successful they think they are) without using the success or failure or status of others as an input. Maybe we shouldn't even be comparing countries at all.
  - MiroF 6y ago
    > money shouldn't be used as a proxy for success Money is a proxy for a lot of things, like ability to afford the things needed to survive on a daily basis. I don't think we can wave away huge global inequity by saying that we shouldn't even compare countries.

by MiroF 6y ago

bonestamp2 6y ago

On that note, I always knew we were the problem, but this reminds me of something I heard that changed the way I thought about it... If aliens were flying past our planet and saw all of our concrete and deforestation from space, they'd assume we're an unstoppable virus that will destroy the ecosystem if a cure is not found. That perspective hit me in a way, at a scale, that I have never thought about before. We see many of our actions as "development" which tends to have a positive meaning, but from space that same "development" looks like a disease that is overrunning the planet. A little further out there, but if other intelligent life exists and they saw us as a virus, they might try to cure the planet by eradicating us.

MiroF 6y ago
> A little further out there, but if other intelligent life exists and they saw us as a virus, they might try to cure the planet by eradicating us. Which would be awful, as we can all agree.
- bonestamp2 6y ago
  Yes, sorry. It would be awful. The implication was that we should turn things around before that could ever be the conclusion another lifeform might come to.
  - kzrdude 6y ago
    Seems like a damn hasty conclusion anyway. We have reason to judge the health of human civilization above other factors, but what grounds do they have with an outside perspective? What's right and wrong for this planet, or for us, from their alien perspective? Why would they sympathize with, say, the dolphins instead of us (they might - for random reasons?)
    - bonestamp2 6y ago
      > Why would they sympathize with, say, the dolphins instead of us (they might - for random reasons?) It wouldn't necessarily be random, it could just be math. If any being looked at any ecosystem objectively, and they see 1 species making that ecosystem worse for 8.7 million other species, then it might seem obvious to side with the 8.7 million other species. Is it ethical to eradicate 1 species to save 8.7 million others? Well, now we've got a classic trolley problem on our hands. They could keep on flying and do nothing, or they could intervene. Not everyone will agree on the ethical choice.
      - kzrdude 6y ago
        Objectively, why intervene? We are life that came from this planet, and this is unfortunately the "natural" course of life of this planet right now :) It's true, that they might be into "gardening" and want to shape the planet they pass by to their aesthetics and values, but it's hard to guess what they are, and it's not objective. I appreciate the discussion of this.
chrisco255 6y ago
If aliens flew by on a space ship then how the hell do you think they manufactured the materials for the space ship? Maybe they've got entire planets devoted to manufacturing. It's rather absurd to think about. This is an incredibly toxic point of view.
- bonestamp2 6y ago
  > how the hell do you think they manufactured the materials for the space ship? I'm not saying we shouldn't develop anything, or that aliens can't develop one spaceship sustainably. The point is that we've done a lot of harm and very few people are trying to turn it around. I'm part of the problem too. I need to be better, and we can amplify each other's efforts if we all work together and build the tools and resources that make it easier for everyone to do better. > This is an incredibly toxic point of view. I disagree. The most toxic view point is literally the one that ignores how unsustainable we have become and how toxic that is for the planet, and our future on it.
efreak 6y ago
Regarding development: I've had a growing belief lately that capitalism (local) isn't the worst thing about global economy. Rather, the global economy itself is what's bad. We shouldn't be comparing countries based on GDP, and money shouldn't be used as a proxy for success. Rather, we should find some way to measure the success of regions and people independently (ie, how successful they think they are) without using the success or failure or status of others as an input. Maybe we shouldn't even be comparing countries at all.
- MiroF 6y ago
  > money shouldn't be used as a proxy for success Money is a proxy for a lot of things, like ability to afford the things needed to survive on a daily basis. I don't think we can wave away huge global inequity by saying that we shouldn't even compare countries.