4 ms·

> The problem with this line of thinking is is that when people say "we" they don't really mean it in "the human kind" sense. I think they mean it in the 'spec

> The problem with this line of thinking is is that when people say "we" they don't really mean it in "the human kind" sense. I think they mean it in the 'species' sense: that there's another planet that serves as a redundant node in the network of the human species. If one node fails, another is on hand to keep the network going and rebuild the failing node. > So educating these people should come first People who talk about 'educating others' on some important thing often convey a deep sense of hubris. I hope that's not actually true of you, but please just be aware that your comment implies this.

mariusor 6y ago
> often convey a deep sense of hubris I meant what I said as a reply to parent's assertion about resource consumption and unsustainability, so I don't know, maybe it is hubris. But I feel like it's safe to assume that the vast majority of people don't really think about how their behaviours in respect to consumption impacts the world as a whole. I'm probably not educated enough in this respect either, but I am pretty sure that following a philosophy where owning less things is better than owning more things is preferable. Yes, I know that in the big picture of the environmental issues the planet has it is not individual contributions that have the largest impact. However the companies that do, are the ones that hold the same "uneducated" people in decision making positions. So, that's why I concluded that better environmental education as a whole would mean less need for humans to flee to other planets. If I'm wrong and that's not the case, then it means the Wachowkis were right, humanity really is a virus. Coming to your other point: > I think they mean it in the 'species' sense: If parent meant it like you're suggesting, it's not by saving the whole species as it is now (ie, 7+ billions of people) but as descendants of the lucky few that get to leave Earth. That in my opinion is definitely not the same as saving the species.

mariusor 6y ago

> often convey a deep sense of hubris I meant what I said as a reply to parent's assertion about resource consumption and unsustainability, so I don't know, maybe it is hubris. But I feel like it's safe to assume that the vast majority of people don't really think about how their behaviours in respect to consumption impacts the world as a whole. I'm probably not educated enough in this respect either, but I am pretty sure that following a philosophy where owning less things is better than owning more things is preferable. Yes, I know that in the big picture of the environmental issues the planet has it is not individual contributions that have the largest impact. However the companies that do, are the ones that hold the same "uneducated" people in decision making positions. So, that's why I concluded that better environmental education as a whole would mean less need for humans to flee to other planets. If I'm wrong and that's not the case, then it means the Wachowkis were right, humanity really is a virus. Coming to your other point: > I think they mean it in the 'species' sense: If parent meant it like you're suggesting, it's not by saving the whole species as it is now (ie, 7+ billions of people) but as descendants of the lucky few that get to leave Earth. That in my opinion is definitely not the same as saving the species.