5 ms·

I suppose if we love the idea of humans being the cause of the end of the world, it is because we are the only thing on the planet capable of causing the end of

I suppose if we love the idea of humans being the cause of the end of the world, it is because we are the only thing on the planet capable of causing the end of the world, such as it is. This is the result of science. Maybe you could call it scientism, if one needs something to which to ascribe a bogeyman or create division. I am not ungrateful for our current actualization. Getting here took (and continues to take) tremendous sacrifice.

stickfigure 5y ago
> capable of causing the end of the world I really think you give humans too much credit here. The world has been here for billions of years, and will be here for billions more. Even if we bombed ourselves to extinction, in another million years there'd be little more to mark our passing than some fossils and a few hunks of concrete.
- dorgo 5y ago
  Naaa, look at what we achieved in a couple hundred years.. And the rate and scale of our "successes" keep increasing (exponentially?). Give us another couple hundred years and I'm sure no fossils (or anything else) will be found. But I think gp meant the end of the world as the end of survivable conditions for humans. Nobody cares if the planet is still here after we are gone.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
    You seem to focus a lot on fossil fuels. Have you reviewed the latest findings of the IPBES regarding the state of biodiversity? Fossil fuels and climate change are small factors when you consider all things. And the ongoing collpase of biodiversity is far more dangerous today than climate change.
    - wildmanx 5y ago
      Wrong forum. The overall consensus here is that everything can be solved with tech.
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
        Poor souls.
- Loughla 5y ago
  You're ignoring the spirit of OP's statement, and your sort of weird argument always pops up in this kind of discussion. Yes, obviously, we won't blow the absolute planet up. Maybe animals and plants will survive past us in some fashion. Maybe, even if we all die, there will come a day when a new evolutionary tract brings a human-like thing back to the world. BUT the spirit is: >we are the only thing on the planet capable of causing the end of the world, such as it is. Meaning, we are the only thing on the planet capable of willingly causing our own extinction. This, for all intents and purposes, is the end of the world. World, again, in this context refers to humans and the human experiment. I don't get the argument that "oh, you mean the death of all humans, the planet will be fine". How is that better? We still all die.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Hyperbole does not elevate serious dialogue.
    - Loughla 5y ago
      I don't understand what you mean. Was I using hyperbole?

stickfigure 5y ago

> capable of causing the end of the world I really think you give humans too much credit here. The world has been here for billions of years, and will be here for billions more. Even if we bombed ourselves to extinction, in another million years there'd be little more to mark our passing than some fossils and a few hunks of concrete.

dorgo 5y ago
Naaa, look at what we achieved in a couple hundred years.. And the rate and scale of our "successes" keep increasing (exponentially?). Give us another couple hundred years and I'm sure no fossils (or anything else) will be found. But I think gp meant the end of the world as the end of survivable conditions for humans. Nobody cares if the planet is still here after we are gone.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  You seem to focus a lot on fossil fuels. Have you reviewed the latest findings of the IPBES regarding the state of biodiversity? Fossil fuels and climate change are small factors when you consider all things. And the ongoing collpase of biodiversity is far more dangerous today than climate change.
  - wildmanx 5y ago
    Wrong forum. The overall consensus here is that everything can be solved with tech.
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      Poor souls.
Loughla 5y ago
You're ignoring the spirit of OP's statement, and your sort of weird argument always pops up in this kind of discussion. Yes, obviously, we won't blow the absolute planet up. Maybe animals and plants will survive past us in some fashion. Maybe, even if we all die, there will come a day when a new evolutionary tract brings a human-like thing back to the world. BUT the spirit is: >we are the only thing on the planet capable of causing the end of the world, such as it is. Meaning, we are the only thing on the planet capable of willingly causing our own extinction. This, for all intents and purposes, is the end of the world. World, again, in this context refers to humans and the human experiment. I don't get the argument that "oh, you mean the death of all humans, the planet will be fine". How is that better? We still all die.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Hyperbole does not elevate serious dialogue.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    I don't understand what you mean. Was I using hyperbole?