2 ms·
> in a way that would be totally socially unacceptable if you were talking about targeted killings or genocide It is neither "cavalier" nor incompassionate to
by heresie-dabord 6y ago
> in a way that would be totally socially unacceptable if you were talking about targeted killings or genocide
It is neither "cavalier" nor incompassionate to refer to the age of the planet and the history of life (e.g. humans). It's a scientific fact that we haven't existed for very long in geological time and that we could become extinct by our own doing... or by a suitably large cosmic impactor (among other causes, cosmic or terrestrial).
Real cavalier talk might be about the tobacco industry, the war industry, or the tens of thousands of people who die in motor-vehicle accidents every year in the US alone.
> Our society is so odd.
Indeed. Squeamish about the truth, comfortable in delusion.
- MiroF 6y agoYou're being uncharitable with your interpretation of my comment. > Indeed. Squeamish about the truth, comfortable in delusion. I'm taking issue with the extinction of humanity being framed as a good thing or a solution to the problem. > we could become extinct by our own doing Yes, and that would be horrible! That would be more horrible than any action taken by the tobacco industry, the war industry, or the inevitable drunk driving.
- heresie-dabord 6y agoLet me say that I have thought about your position. It is not a "solution" for humanity to exterminate itself through its own idiocy. But you can see that it is a hard problem that might well "solve itself", as the thread-OP said. As a humanist, I prefer to make an effort. Although extinction through our own idiocy would be horrible, it would be of a piece with the other plagues that I mentioned. Albeit on a different scale. Extinction because of a major catastrophic event not of our causing would be tragic because there isn't much intelligent life in the neighbourhood, much less under our "own roof".