3 ms·

> You make it sound like human-caused extinction is "part of the natural process" - it is not. Only from a human perspective are humans something other than na

by slibhb 5y ago

> You make it sound like human-caused extinction is "part of the natural process" - it is not. Only from a human perspective are humans something other than natural. This seems to conflict with the vague sort of anti-humanism that is in vogue among many environmentalists. If you want to look at humanity from a perspective that isn't human then "the Holocene extinction" is perfectly natural.

mandmandam 5y ago
> Only from a human perspective are humans something other than natural. I don't think that's actually true. Any alien observing the planet over the last 4 billion years would recognize us as an anomaly. Polluted cities, sucking in value from all around, at the cost of countless species have often been compared to cancer. The aliens might see things similarly, with their large dispassionate eye and tall perspective.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > Any alien observing the planet over the last 4 billion years would recognize us as an anomaly. An anomaly, sure, but they could very well view us as a natural anomaly. We're talking about fiction now and there's plenty of fiction that runs along these lines (aliens view humans as humans view other animals). > Polluted cities, sucking in value from all around, at the cost of countless species have often been compared to cancer. Not a great sign when your worldview is exactly the same as the villain in The Matrix...
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    Natural anomaly is something of an oxymoron. And Smith was a great villain because we could all see where he was coming from.
    - slibhb 5y ago
      > Natural anomaly is something of an oxymoron. No it's not. Anomaly refers to something deviating from some trend or norm. Unnatural means something different.
- abletonlive 5y ago
  > Any alien observing the planet over the last 4 billion years would recognize us as an anomaly. That assertion is a little bit too confident. Philosophically speaking, can you explain what is different about us creating pollution vs. a tree creating oxygen? Are you saying viruses and cancer are an anomaly or unnatural?
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    We notice viruses and cancer because they are anomalous. Philosophically speaking, us creating pollution is bad vs a tree creating oxygen because we are killing species at a rate 1000x the background rate. That's objectively bad, extremely fucking bad. Any philosophy that doesn't recognize mass destruction of life for the sake of temporary individual profit as bad and not normal is _severely_ deficient, to the point of being utterly useless or even harmful.
    - abletonlive 5y ago
      Your argument is not robust at all. Everything we notice is an anomaly? We don't notice viruses and cancer because they are anomalous to nature. We notice them because we are observers of existence.
rixed 5y ago
Of course, in a way, everything is natural. Let's not play with words, "unnatural" in this context generally refers to "human induced", ie "under human control", ie "we could do something about it, if we fixed politics". Then at this point some will object that if we haven't fixed it yet, it's because we really can't, because our current politics is actually natural, so we should not even try (showing that the anti-environmentalists can also make use of the natural vs unnatural rhetoric). "Nature" just like its oposite "human volition" are nothing but concepts that has to be assumed or those discussions make no sense.
- slibhb 5y ago
  My point in bringing up the semantics of "natural" was that environmentalism relies on anthropocentrism. That's fine with me but it doesn't seem fine with the environmentalists since they hate humanity and consider it a cancer. > Then at this point some will object that if we haven't fixed it yet, it's because we really can't, because our current politics is actually natural, so we should not even try (showing that the anti-environmentalists can also make use of the natural vs unnatural rhetoric). No one (in this thread) said "we should not even try". The question is how we frame environmentalism. The kind of anti-humanism that is associated with modern environmentalism is not the way to go.

by slibhb 5y ago

mandmandam 5y ago

> Only from a human perspective are humans something other than natural. I don't think that's actually true. Any alien observing the planet over the last 4 billion years would recognize us as an anomaly. Polluted cities, sucking in value from all around, at the cost of countless species have often been compared to cancer. The aliens might see things similarly, with their large dispassionate eye and tall perspective.

slibhb 5y ago
> Any alien observing the planet over the last 4 billion years would recognize us as an anomaly. An anomaly, sure, but they could very well view us as a natural anomaly. We're talking about fiction now and there's plenty of fiction that runs along these lines (aliens view humans as humans view other animals). > Polluted cities, sucking in value from all around, at the cost of countless species have often been compared to cancer. Not a great sign when your worldview is exactly the same as the villain in The Matrix...
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Natural anomaly is something of an oxymoron. And Smith was a great villain because we could all see where he was coming from.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    > Natural anomaly is something of an oxymoron. No it's not. Anomaly refers to something deviating from some trend or norm. Unnatural means something different.
abletonlive 5y ago
> Any alien observing the planet over the last 4 billion years would recognize us as an anomaly. That assertion is a little bit too confident. Philosophically speaking, can you explain what is different about us creating pollution vs. a tree creating oxygen? Are you saying viruses and cancer are an anomaly or unnatural?
- mandmandam 5y ago
  We notice viruses and cancer because they are anomalous. Philosophically speaking, us creating pollution is bad vs a tree creating oxygen because we are killing species at a rate 1000x the background rate. That's objectively bad, extremely fucking bad. Any philosophy that doesn't recognize mass destruction of life for the sake of temporary individual profit as bad and not normal is _severely_ deficient, to the point of being utterly useless or even harmful.
  - abletonlive 5y ago
    Your argument is not robust at all. Everything we notice is an anomaly? We don't notice viruses and cancer because they are anomalous to nature. We notice them because we are observers of existence.

rixed 5y ago

Of course, in a way, everything is natural. Let's not play with words, "unnatural" in this context generally refers to "human induced", ie "under human control", ie "we could do something about it, if we fixed politics". Then at this point some will object that if we haven't fixed it yet, it's because we really can't, because our current politics is actually natural, so we should not even try (showing that the anti-environmentalists can also make use of the natural vs unnatural rhetoric). "Nature" just like its oposite "human volition" are nothing but concepts that has to be assumed or those discussions make no sense.

slibhb 5y ago
My point in bringing up the semantics of "natural" was that environmentalism relies on anthropocentrism. That's fine with me but it doesn't seem fine with the environmentalists since they hate humanity and consider it a cancer. > Then at this point some will object that if we haven't fixed it yet, it's because we really can't, because our current politics is actually natural, so we should not even try (showing that the anti-environmentalists can also make use of the natural vs unnatural rhetoric). No one (in this thread) said "we should not even try". The question is how we frame environmentalism. The kind of anti-humanism that is associated with modern environmentalism is not the way to go.