3 ms·

There could have been a viable solution: 1/2 surviving child per person and tech to preserve genetic material of every human being. Climate change is not somet

There could have been a viable solution: 1/2 surviving child per person and tech to preserve genetic material of every human being. Climate change is not something we could have stopped or influenced. We could have only made a difference in how we chose to perpetuate our species and the eco system we need to survive as a super apex predator. Our politicians failed us. But it’s our collective fault because we elected them and got our priorities wrong. I also blame the proliferation of religions that chose politics over a search for divinity. The zeal to keep adding members to the flock exploded exponentially. We used science and tech to keep the ageing barely alive but not thriving. It costs environmentally more to create and raise a child than to keep us living longer and maintain lower rates of obsolescence. Our survival/thrive/productivity rates are not efficient. We have just begun to understand the expansiveness of intelligence and it’s knowledge amplification. Automation and AI is just the tip of the iceberg. Too bad we find babies cute and hug the age of retirement. It’s like blowing our lungs out into a balloon that can be the size of the room but we prick it when it’s the size of a grapefruit because we think that’s the limit of it’s expansion. What a waste of air..waste of materials and for such short lived fun. Everyone dies, but we really didn’t have to die like a dumbass species that forgot its collective survival instinct and latent potentials.

jelliclesfarm 4y ago
+ [..]The most insidious threat to humankind is something called “extinction debt.” There comes a time in the progress of any species, even ones that seem to be thriving, when extinction will be inevitable, no matter what they might do to avert it. The cause of extinction is usually a delayed reaction to habitat loss. The species most at risk are those that dominate particular habitat patches at the expense of others, who tend to migrate elsewhere, and are therefore spread more thinly. Humans occupy more or less the whole planet, and with our sequestration of a large wedge of the productivity of this planetwide habitat patch, we are dominant within it. H. sapiens might therefore already be a dead species walking. The signs are already there for those willing to see them. When the habitat becomes degraded such that there are fewer resources to go around; when fertility starts to decline; when the birth rate sinks below the death rate; and when genetic resources are limited—the only way is down. The question is “How fast?”[..] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-doomed-to-go-extinct/?amp=true https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-doomed...

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

+ [..]The most insidious threat to humankind is something called “extinction debt.” There comes a time in the progress of any species, even ones that seem to be thriving, when extinction will be inevitable, no matter what they might do to avert it. The cause of extinction is usually a delayed reaction to habitat loss. The species most at risk are those that dominate particular habitat patches at the expense of others, who tend to migrate elsewhere, and are therefore spread more thinly. Humans occupy more or less the whole planet, and with our sequestration of a large wedge of the productivity of this planetwide habitat patch, we are dominant within it. H. sapiens might therefore already be a dead species walking. The signs are already there for those willing to see them. When the habitat becomes degraded such that there are fewer resources to go around; when fertility starts to decline; when the birth rate sinks below the death rate; and when genetic resources are limited—the only way is down. The question is “How fast?”[..] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-doomed-to-go-extinct/?amp=true https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-doomed...