3 ms·

It's too selfish for humans to say world is better. Is the world only for humans? Does it belong to us only? Every other species is in terrible condition than

It's too selfish for humans to say world is better. Is the world only for humans? Does it belong to us only? Every other species is in terrible condition than before or they got extinction. And the better is not going to last. All the progress is because of extreme fossil fuel usage. The effect has started to show, to be honest it's going to get much worse in coming decades. It's like a person falling from a building says life was never so exiting while going down each floor, even just before hitting the ground.

mandmandam 4y ago
Why are you booing him; he's right. While the article immediately addresses the acceptance of both awful and fantastic changes, it doesn't address our effect on the other species of the planet - which has been rather unambiguously horrific. On a scale that's basically impossible to comprehend without lifetimes of study across diverse fields. This needs to be addressed more. Every hour of every day, until we have accountability for the people responsible and genuine changes. I want our future to be one that respects the biosphere and all species, not just one. It's not just altruistic either - we've lost so much already, and people don't even know.
- slothtrop 4y ago
  > It's not just altruistic either Then it's factored in to the "is the world better for humans" category
  - Nevermark 4y ago
    Yes, "the world is better" should ideally include the impacts of today's decisions, not just today's direct response to previous factors. But the example of childhood death statistics doesn't include any analysis of how today's actions are setting up future childhood safety issues regarding plastics, climate change, overfishing, water shortages, etc.
perrygeo 4y ago
Exactly. The article claims that the world is "better" because we have improved child mortality rates. They state (correctly) that the improvement is a consequence of alleviating poverty and improving material living conditions. But how did we DO that? Did we just put our heads down and chant "economic growth for everyone"?! No. This growth was, and will continue to be, driven by industrial capital, mining, and fossil fuels. How are children born today going to raise grandchildren in the likely decline of those advantages? And there must be a discussion of the costs: pollution, climate change, resource depletion, species extinction, and myriad other social and environmental externalities. Are things really "better" if more kids are born... into an unsustainable system? I think the younger generation today is ALREADY seeing the cracks, getting less from the system while paying higher costs to buy in. The energy-blind adherence to growth at all costs is a philosophy that does a disservice not just other species on earth, but future humans as well.

mandmandam 4y ago

Why are you booing him; he's right. While the article immediately addresses the acceptance of both awful and fantastic changes, it doesn't address our effect on the other species of the planet - which has been rather unambiguously horrific. On a scale that's basically impossible to comprehend without lifetimes of study across diverse fields. This needs to be addressed more. Every hour of every day, until we have accountability for the people responsible and genuine changes. I want our future to be one that respects the biosphere and all species, not just one. It's not just altruistic either - we've lost so much already, and people don't even know.

slothtrop 4y ago
> It's not just altruistic either Then it's factored in to the "is the world better for humans" category
- Nevermark 4y ago
  Yes, "the world is better" should ideally include the impacts of today's decisions, not just today's direct response to previous factors. But the example of childhood death statistics doesn't include any analysis of how today's actions are setting up future childhood safety issues regarding plastics, climate change, overfishing, water shortages, etc.

perrygeo 4y ago

Exactly. The article claims that the world is "better" because we have improved child mortality rates. They state (correctly) that the improvement is a consequence of alleviating poverty and improving material living conditions. But how did we DO that? Did we just put our heads down and chant "economic growth for everyone"?! No. This growth was, and will continue to be, driven by industrial capital, mining, and fossil fuels. How are children born today going to raise grandchildren in the likely decline of those advantages? And there must be a discussion of the costs: pollution, climate change, resource depletion, species extinction, and myriad other social and environmental externalities. Are things really "better" if more kids are born... into an unsustainable system? I think the younger generation today is ALREADY seeing the cracks, getting less from the system while paying higher costs to buy in. The energy-blind adherence to growth at all costs is a philosophy that does a disservice not just other species on earth, but future humans as well.