4 ms·

I think the best example of people who assume reciprocation are the types of tourists that walk up to and try to take pictures with wild animals. They assume as

I think the best example of people who assume reciprocation are the types of tourists that walk up to and try to take pictures with wild animals. They assume as long as they’re nice the animal will be nice. On a larger scale, I think people tend to assume that bad natural events like fires, hurricanes, floods, etc relate to how we treat the planet, and that if we stop human activities, those things will become more manageable. I think a lot of people vastly underestimate how powerful and uncaring most natural forces are to a lot of what we do. Volcanoes have randomly erupted and emitted enough particulates to effectively cancel spring/summer. While we don’t want to use technology poorly and pollute our environment, the reason we have technology in the first place is to shape our environment to be less inhospitable to us than it is naturally.

wolverine876 4y ago
> I think the best example of people who assume reciprocation are the types of tourists that walk up to and try to take pictures with wild animals. They assume as long as they’re nice the animal will be nice. This is quite a stretch from befriending some mythical anthropomorphized 'Nature' to making nice with wild animals for photos. Animals actually do feel and act and respond, and it's actually true that animals will respond better to 'nice' behavior than aggressive behavior, though wild animals still are not reliable enough. > I think people tend to assume that bad natural events like fires, hurricanes, floods, etc relate to how we treat the planet They don't assume it, there is an enormous amount of evidence and clear scientific consensus going back decades that human activities cause climate change, and climate change results in some of the problems you describe. Other human activities also affect those things. > the reason we have technology in the first place is to shape our environment to be less inhospitable to us than it is naturally If you believe that, why don't you believe technology can also make our environment more inhospitable. Again, it's all philosophy, and IMHO transparent. Do I really need to write all this to say the obvious? And when not philosophizing, what are you doing about our environment?
- circlefavshape 4y ago
  > And when not philosophizing, what are you doing about our environment? I think you ought to re-read the posts you're replying to and stop trying to make an enemy of someone who, as far as I can tell, could well be doing as much about our environment as you are
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    That's a pretty accusatory comment for someone preaching listening!
- didericis 4y ago
  I do believe technology can make our environment more inhospitable. The best world is one with zero emissions and everyone having all their shipping/transportation, heating, air conditioning, farming, food preservation, and other energy needs met in full. The philosophizing becomes important when deciding between people’s ability to meet basic needs and environmental protection. I think it’s a mistake to think there’s an intrinsic good in trying to preserve nature as it is currently, as nature is agnostic and much more inhospitable without modern amenities. The good relates to all of the many benefits of the way the environment is now to us, including long term environmental effects relative to our survival and the continuation of all the beauty and learning opportunities that currently exist in the current form of our natural world. I’m not sure where the hostility is coming from. My consumption is pretty low and I enjoy spending time in and learning about nature. I think the best and most practical thing we could be doing energy wise is building more nuclear salt reactors, which I advocate for fairly frequently. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t take care of the environment.

wolverine876 4y ago

> I think the best example of people who assume reciprocation are the types of tourists that walk up to and try to take pictures with wild animals. They assume as long as they’re nice the animal will be nice. This is quite a stretch from befriending some mythical anthropomorphized 'Nature' to making nice with wild animals for photos. Animals actually do feel and act and respond, and it's actually true that animals will respond better to 'nice' behavior than aggressive behavior, though wild animals still are not reliable enough. > I think people tend to assume that bad natural events like fires, hurricanes, floods, etc relate to how we treat the planet They don't assume it, there is an enormous amount of evidence and clear scientific consensus going back decades that human activities cause climate change, and climate change results in some of the problems you describe. Other human activities also affect those things. > the reason we have technology in the first place is to shape our environment to be less inhospitable to us than it is naturally If you believe that, why don't you believe technology can also make our environment more inhospitable. Again, it's all philosophy, and IMHO transparent. Do I really need to write all this to say the obvious? And when not philosophizing, what are you doing about our environment?

circlefavshape 4y ago
> And when not philosophizing, what are you doing about our environment? I think you ought to re-read the posts you're replying to and stop trying to make an enemy of someone who, as far as I can tell, could well be doing as much about our environment as you are
- wolverine876 4y ago
  That's a pretty accusatory comment for someone preaching listening!
didericis 4y ago
I do believe technology can make our environment more inhospitable. The best world is one with zero emissions and everyone having all their shipping/transportation, heating, air conditioning, farming, food preservation, and other energy needs met in full. The philosophizing becomes important when deciding between people’s ability to meet basic needs and environmental protection. I think it’s a mistake to think there’s an intrinsic good in trying to preserve nature as it is currently, as nature is agnostic and much more inhospitable without modern amenities. The good relates to all of the many benefits of the way the environment is now to us, including long term environmental effects relative to our survival and the continuation of all the beauty and learning opportunities that currently exist in the current form of our natural world. I’m not sure where the hostility is coming from. My consumption is pretty low and I enjoy spending time in and learning about nature. I think the best and most practical thing we could be doing energy wise is building more nuclear salt reactors, which I advocate for fairly frequently. I am not arguing that we shouldn’t take care of the environment.