4 ms·

Let's get even more pedantic! "Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't going anywhere. It will survive extinction events. "Preserve nonhuman

Let's get even more pedantic! "Save the planet" is misleading entirely: the planet isn't going anywhere. It will survive extinction events. "Preserve nonhuman species and the current state of the environment" is where your "get rid of all the humans and their activity" proposal would fit. But is that actually what anyone wants? The real goal for most people would be, I wager, much more like: "Preserve both human and non-human life, with 21st-century-wealthy-country-standards-of-living, and also preserve the current state of the environment." In short: you're making "save the planet" into a very particular strawman that misrepresents what people who say it mean.

calibas 5y ago
So when people say "save the planet" they also mean preserving a completely unsustainable standard of living? I disagree, but if I wanted a strawman to shoot down that's a good one. To be clear, I meant protecting the current ecosystems and I don't believe we need to regress or eliminate the human race to do that either.
- jandrese 5y ago
  How about transforming an unsustainable standard of living into a sustainable one? "Kill all humans" is so defeatist. So is "kill most humans and go back to being hunter/gatherers". That's not even trying. That is flipping the board because you think you're losing.
  - calibas 5y ago
    To repeat what I said already, "Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate that less [human] activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet." That was why I brought it up, I wasn't suggesting that we actually kill everyone, that's unrealistic and absurd, nor did I say that we should go back to being hunter/gatherers. I suggested we do less, which means consuming less and is part of a sustainable standard of living, so I'm a little confused by your comment... I think I ruffled some feathers by pointing out that every human being dropping dead right now would be the best possible thing to happen for the health of the biosphere. It's an ugly truth, I was hoping it would motivate people to change.
JackFr 5y ago
I don't think the OP is being pedantic to make a strawman, rather I think they are pointing out that the bulk of policy proposals are for the most part internalized assumptions about what is to be desired. "Why is climate change undesirable?" is the fundamental question which is not often talked about. Is it bad because it will affect humans adversely? Is it bad because it affects non-humans adversely? Is it bad because there is some particular state the Earth should be in?

calibas 5y ago

So when people say "save the planet" they also mean preserving a completely unsustainable standard of living? I disagree, but if I wanted a strawman to shoot down that's a good one. To be clear, I meant protecting the current ecosystems and I don't believe we need to regress or eliminate the human race to do that either.

jandrese 5y ago
How about transforming an unsustainable standard of living into a sustainable one? "Kill all humans" is so defeatist. So is "kill most humans and go back to being hunter/gatherers". That's not even trying. That is flipping the board because you think you're losing.
- calibas 5y ago
  To repeat what I said already, "Obviously that's a bit extreme, but it's to illustrate that less [human] activity, not more, is what's best for the Planet." That was why I brought it up, I wasn't suggesting that we actually kill everyone, that's unrealistic and absurd, nor did I say that we should go back to being hunter/gatherers. I suggested we do less, which means consuming less and is part of a sustainable standard of living, so I'm a little confused by your comment... I think I ruffled some feathers by pointing out that every human being dropping dead right now would be the best possible thing to happen for the health of the biosphere. It's an ugly truth, I was hoping it would motivate people to change.

JackFr 5y ago

I don't think the OP is being pedantic to make a strawman, rather I think they are pointing out that the bulk of policy proposals are for the most part internalized assumptions about what is to be desired. "Why is climate change undesirable?" is the fundamental question which is not often talked about. Is it bad because it will affect humans adversely? Is it bad because it affects non-humans adversely? Is it bad because there is some particular state the Earth should be in?