4 ms·
The point of fighting climate change is to preserve human life on earth (and in good conditions). If we destroy the environment, nature will survive - some spi
by kolinko 6y ago
The point of fighting climate change is to preserve human life on earth (and in good conditions).
If we destroy the environment, nature will survive - some spiecies will die off, but new ones will emerge.
Nature was doing very well when co2 was a few times more than today. It’s just humans that were’t there to witness it.
- rbg246 6y agoThis is just so human centric surely you can see how caring for all of Earth's biome is important. Personally, I care about Earth's biome in its current state, and do not want to cause unnecessary suffering to animals or plant ecosystems because people trashed the joint especially since we had the ability not to.
- gostsamo 6y agoIt is human-centric, yes. However, the argument "don't have children for the only reason that they will trash the planet" is broken in its very core. First, because a person making it will have a difficulty explaining their own existence, and second, because if they don't have children, the chances are that their values will die with them and the Earth shall be inherited by the wasteful.
- mariusor 6y ago> First, because a person making it will have a difficulty explaining their own existence Maybe to you. I derive a great enjoyment from just being alive myself and living my own potential. Considering a life meaningless without procreation is a very unintellectual perspective in my opinion.
- gostsamo 6y agoYou miss the part where the very existence of the person brings suffering through the consumption of all kinds of nature destroying goods. Obviously such person values their enjoyment over the suffering of others. This is one of the main issues of utilitarian philosophy where the attempt of applying universal measures of cost-benefit analysis returns unpleasant results.
- woutgaze 6y agoHow do you know nature will survive? Records of previous climate changes indicate the change occurred more gradually in tens of thousands of years, not within 200 years. So nature may not have time to adapt. Also the living earth may have just been lucky the last time drastic climate change occurred; it's not that we have thousands of earths to exclude survivorship bias.
- gostsamo 6y agoBS. You had a fucking meteorite wiping out the dinosaurs in a year or so. Everyone who has a tiny bit of education has heard about this. Everyone who has a bit more education knows that sterilizing Earth will take much more concerted effort than a nuclear war. So, yes, I know it will survive.
- woutgaze 6y agoWe're not talking about sterilizing earth but a runaway greenhouse effect. For example Venus seems not to have survived: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-suggests-venus-may-have-been-habitable/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2475/nasa-climate-modeling-sug...
- gostsamo 6y agoVenus is like Earth the same way both a table and a cow have four legs. From the announcement you read only the parts how Venus and Earth are similar, but not how they differ. The runaway effect was possible because Venus had less water, is closer to the Sun, and has no magnetic shield. The runaway effect you imagine on Earth needs significant changes in its chemical composition, in its mass, or its physical attributes like magnetic field and thermal input. Humanity is still far from doing something like that. Weight until we start building a cosmic mirror, have self-sustained nuclear reaction on a global scale, or build an earth spanning superconductor network with massive energy volume that would counter the magnetosphere.