5 ms·

We are, collectively, a planetary disease.

by anderson1993 5y ago

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
I really dislike comments like these, because it removes personal responsibility while at the same time blaming everyone for the actions of individuals and the consequences of national or corporate policy. And it low-key advocates in favor of reducing or removing the human population entirely. Forest fires happened outside of human intervention.
- talaketu 5y ago
  If you accept the idea that the planet's biosphere is a super-organism, then a natural description of large-scale and ongoing reduction in ecological diversity could be "disease".
  - d4mi3n 5y ago
    I think the point GP is making is that this categorization is counterproductive to solving the underlying issues, regardless of what consensus is reached on the taxonomy of our place in the wider ecosystem. To make an analogy: It's a lot like calling a student dumb for being unable to answer questions on a test they didn't have a chance to study for. If the goal is to improve grades, demoralizing the student is counterproductive.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Or, you could notice that we're the only ones that care. "Reduction", "destruction" are terms meaningful to us and us only, because we're also capable of appreciating the ecosystem as its own thing. The rest of life on this planet falls on the spectrum between "must eat, must not get eaten" and "runaway chemical reaction". If the planet's biosphere is a super-organism, then we are its brain cells.
    - robbiep 5y ago
      That’s a better analogy - there have been countless extinctions and mass extinctions and the ecology shifts as the climate changes anyway. Nature is indifferent. It would be ‘good’ if we weren’t causing this one, but good and bad are concepts of consciousness
    - talaketu 5y ago
      "Who cares?" reminds me of the diagnostician's distinction between signs and symptoms. Vital signs of the health of the biosphere can be measured, just like your blood pressure can be measured regardless of whether you I should care about how you feel.
      - TeMPOraL 5y ago
        "Vital signs" are still only meaningful in terms of humans talking about how the body of a human (or an animal, or a living or life-like system) should function. Blood pressure just is - whether its measured value is "good" or "bad", that's up to our preferences for what it should be. If you remove sapience from this situation, then blood pressure just is, period. One particular aspect of what is just one big chemical reaction, or [insert whatever is at the bottom of how reality works]. It is said that since god died, the meaning of life is what we make it to be. But if there's no one around capable of processing the concept of meaning, then life has no meaning at all.
        talaketu 5y ago
        "Would a tree falling in the forest ..." never seemed much of a puzzle to me. I don't agree with the proposition that life on Earth had no value until it gave rise to the evolution of Homo sapiens, or that it would have no value after our extinction.
    - danparsonson 5y ago
      That's quite a reductive view of the rest of the animal kingdom. There are plenty of animals that appear to have some degree of sentience and self-awareness, and every living thing cares about its own survival. We may have the best understanding of the situation on a global scale, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that, for example, some marine mammals have a good understanding of the declining conditions in the world's oceans, especially given how widely they migrate.
  - grondo4 5y ago
    In the last great extinction event 75% of all species became extinct [1]. No humans necessary! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_e...
57844743385 5y ago
I totally agree. The sooner all humanity is gone, the better for all the other species on earth. Or what’s left of them by the time we’re gone.
- mihaic 5y ago
  I'm really curious why you care about the ecosystem if humans went extinct. It feel extremely unnatural to me, to put another species over their own.
  - bantunes 5y ago
    To quote ambassador Spock: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
    - atlantic 5y ago
      If it's just a question of numbers, we should prioritize the survival of ants over our own. Not a good argument.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        If you're counting species, beetles.
      - thujlife 5y ago
        the needs of the haves outweigh the needs of the have nots"
      - OneTimePetes 5y ago
        The needs of the many legs outweigh the needs of the few
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      Unless there are aliens around, there won't be any "many" left after humanity goes extinct - at least not until another sapient species evolves.
refurb 5y ago
If there aren't humans here to admire the Giant Sequoias, do they have any worth? I'm asking that seriously. Humans are the ones that value them. Without humans, nobody would care.
rich_sasha 5y ago
We are doing exactly what any other, less intelligent species is doing too: myopically exploiting the environment to fuel instantaneous growth. Wolves don't think, "heck, let's leave some deer around and limit our offspring so we may prosper next year". Of course we should know better, and be kinder to our planet, for our own good. As far as nature is concerned, we are doing what nature does. And if we go extinct as a result, that's part of nature too.

We are, collectively, a planetary disease.

I really dislike comments like these, because it removes personal responsibility while at the same time blaming everyone for the actions of individuals and the consequences of national or corporate policy. And it low-key advocates in favor of reducing or removing the human population entirely. Forest fires happened outside of human intervention.

talaketu 5y ago
If you accept the idea that the planet's biosphere is a super-organism, then a natural description of large-scale and ongoing reduction in ecological diversity could be "disease".
- d4mi3n 5y ago
  I think the point GP is making is that this categorization is counterproductive to solving the underlying issues, regardless of what consensus is reached on the taxonomy of our place in the wider ecosystem. To make an analogy: It's a lot like calling a student dumb for being unable to answer questions on a test they didn't have a chance to study for. If the goal is to improve grades, demoralizing the student is counterproductive.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Or, you could notice that we're the only ones that care. "Reduction", "destruction" are terms meaningful to us and us only, because we're also capable of appreciating the ecosystem as its own thing. The rest of life on this planet falls on the spectrum between "must eat, must not get eaten" and "runaway chemical reaction". If the planet's biosphere is a super-organism, then we are its brain cells.
  - robbiep 5y ago
    That’s a better analogy - there have been countless extinctions and mass extinctions and the ecology shifts as the climate changes anyway. Nature is indifferent. It would be ‘good’ if we weren’t causing this one, but good and bad are concepts of consciousness
  - talaketu 5y ago
    "Who cares?" reminds me of the diagnostician's distinction between signs and symptoms. Vital signs of the health of the biosphere can be measured, just like your blood pressure can be measured regardless of whether you I should care about how you feel.
    - TeMPOraL 5y ago
      "Vital signs" are still only meaningful in terms of humans talking about how the body of a human (or an animal, or a living or life-like system) should function. Blood pressure just is - whether its measured value is "good" or "bad", that's up to our preferences for what it should be. If you remove sapience from this situation, then blood pressure just is, period. One particular aspect of what is just one big chemical reaction, or [insert whatever is at the bottom of how reality works]. It is said that since god died, the meaning of life is what we make it to be. But if there's no one around capable of processing the concept of meaning, then life has no meaning at all.
      - talaketu 5y ago
        "Would a tree falling in the forest ..." never seemed much of a puzzle to me. I don't agree with the proposition that life on Earth had no value until it gave rise to the evolution of Homo sapiens, or that it would have no value after our extinction.
  - danparsonson 5y ago
    That's quite a reductive view of the rest of the animal kingdom. There are plenty of animals that appear to have some degree of sentience and self-awareness, and every living thing cares about its own survival. We may have the best understanding of the situation on a global scale, but it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine that, for example, some marine mammals have a good understanding of the declining conditions in the world's oceans, especially given how widely they migrate.
- grondo4 5y ago
  In the last great extinction event 75% of all species became extinct [1]. No humans necessary! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_e...

57844743385 5y ago

I totally agree. The sooner all humanity is gone, the better for all the other species on earth. Or what’s left of them by the time we’re gone.

mihaic 5y ago
I'm really curious why you care about the ecosystem if humans went extinct. It feel extremely unnatural to me, to put another species over their own.
- bantunes 5y ago
  To quote ambassador Spock: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
  - atlantic 5y ago
    If it's just a question of numbers, we should prioritize the survival of ants over our own. Not a good argument.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      If you're counting species, beetles.
    - thujlife 5y ago
      the needs of the haves outweigh the needs of the have nots"
    - OneTimePetes 5y ago
      The needs of the many legs outweigh the needs of the few
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Unless there are aliens around, there won't be any "many" left after humanity goes extinct - at least not until another sapient species evolves.

refurb 5y ago

If there aren't humans here to admire the Giant Sequoias, do they have any worth? I'm asking that seriously. Humans are the ones that value them. Without humans, nobody would care.

rich_sasha 5y ago

We are doing exactly what any other, less intelligent species is doing too: myopically exploiting the environment to fuel instantaneous growth. Wolves don't think, "heck, let's leave some deer around and limit our offspring so we may prosper next year". Of course we should know better, and be kinder to our planet, for our own good. As far as nature is concerned, we are doing what nature does. And if we go extinct as a result, that's part of nature too.