6 ms·

Sure, there's no life without death, but you're kind of underselling the Anthropocene Mass Extinction a wee bit, aren't you?

by pohl 4y ago

seydor 4y ago
Those are unscientific things. I didn't expect that what i said would be considered controversial. We live in extraordinary challenging times and people should steer away from sentimental fluff.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Sentimental fluff? To be human is to have emotions, being sentimental is one type of emotion you can feel. Especially if you feel like Earth is currently being overrun and destroyed by humanity at breakneck speeds. To feel emotional about this OK, as long as you also stay grounded and realistic. But we should not hide our emotions, it's possible to be both emotional and rational.
- 8jef 4y ago
  The fluff is the stuff only those who are aware of what's happening, of what happened (not just of the scientific things), can experience. Earth, we are trashing it, not up for debate, not anymore. Probably not trashing it as much as we could, but more than enough, which is obvious as a nose in a face. When confronted to the cold embrace of those who can't see and feel anything of the sort, some can only resort to their sentiments, the _sentimental stuff_ as you frame it, which can only follow the drama, never preceding it. Just like arriving onto a crime scene and yelling at the crying survivors to shut up, without any consideration for the crime committed before, or any of its consequences.
- dwaltrip 4y ago
  Extinction rates can be measured and modeled. What’s unscientific about that?
- trinsic2 4y ago
  Life isn't just about science, contrary to popular belief. In fact, you can do better science by making the mind-body connection to the unseen and unverified. Knowing that something exists outside of scientific understanding while grounding yourself to reality strengthens awareness and removes mental positions/projections which are barriers to real science.
edgyquant 4y ago
No he’s really not
towaway15463 4y ago
Not really. As sentimental and time limited beings we don’t want to see things go extinct since we won’t be able to experience them again or be around to see what comes next. But in the larger picture we’re actually quite tame when it comes to extinction events. At least we are making an effort to limit the damage we’re doing. Space rocks and chemistry can’t do that. In the long run other species will evolve and maybe with luck we’ll have a hand in steering that evolution.
- therealdrag0 4y ago
  If we domesticate the majority of the planet nothing substantial will evolve without us controlling it. We have replaced a large percentage of wild organic biomass with us and our pets and cattle and farms.
  - towaway15463 4y ago
    We’re still very far off from that and trending away from using more land in developed countries.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Really? "According to the a 2011 biomass census compiled by Vaclav Smil, human activity over the last 5,000 years has reduced total global biomass by about 50 percent". http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs61...
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        'it's nothing compared to an asteroid impact' is just the elaboration of 'humans can't impact climate lol' or 'obviously you don't even care about the heat death of the universe'. While we shouldn't paralyse ourselves with existential guilt, evoking apocalyptic scenarios in a policy discussion is usually intended to derail discussion and prevent the emergence of consensus, ime.

Sure, there's no life without death, but you're kind of underselling the Anthropocene Mass Extinction a wee bit, aren't you?

by pohl 4y ago

Sure, there's no life without death, but you're kind of underselling the Anthropocene Mass Extinction a wee bit, aren't you?

seydor 4y ago

Those are unscientific things. I didn't expect that what i said would be considered controversial. We live in extraordinary challenging times and people should steer away from sentimental fluff.

capableweb 4y ago
Sentimental fluff? To be human is to have emotions, being sentimental is one type of emotion you can feel. Especially if you feel like Earth is currently being overrun and destroyed by humanity at breakneck speeds. To feel emotional about this OK, as long as you also stay grounded and realistic. But we should not hide our emotions, it's possible to be both emotional and rational.
8jef 4y ago
The fluff is the stuff only those who are aware of what's happening, of what happened (not just of the scientific things), can experience. Earth, we are trashing it, not up for debate, not anymore. Probably not trashing it as much as we could, but more than enough, which is obvious as a nose in a face. When confronted to the cold embrace of those who can't see and feel anything of the sort, some can only resort to their sentiments, the _sentimental stuff_ as you frame it, which can only follow the drama, never preceding it. Just like arriving onto a crime scene and yelling at the crying survivors to shut up, without any consideration for the crime committed before, or any of its consequences.
dwaltrip 4y ago
Extinction rates can be measured and modeled. What’s unscientific about that?
trinsic2 4y ago
Life isn't just about science, contrary to popular belief. In fact, you can do better science by making the mind-body connection to the unseen and unverified. Knowing that something exists outside of scientific understanding while grounding yourself to reality strengthens awareness and removes mental positions/projections which are barriers to real science.

edgyquant 4y ago

No he’s really not

towaway15463 4y ago

Not really. As sentimental and time limited beings we don’t want to see things go extinct since we won’t be able to experience them again or be around to see what comes next. But in the larger picture we’re actually quite tame when it comes to extinction events. At least we are making an effort to limit the damage we’re doing. Space rocks and chemistry can’t do that. In the long run other species will evolve and maybe with luck we’ll have a hand in steering that evolution.

therealdrag0 4y ago
If we domesticate the majority of the planet nothing substantial will evolve without us controlling it. We have replaced a large percentage of wild organic biomass with us and our pets and cattle and farms.
- towaway15463 4y ago
  We’re still very far off from that and trending away from using more land in developed countries.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Really? "According to the a 2011 biomass census compiled by Vaclav Smil, human activity over the last 5,000 years has reduced total global biomass by about 50 percent". http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs613-636.pdf http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/PDR37-4.Smil_.pgs61...
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      'it's nothing compared to an asteroid impact' is just the elaboration of 'humans can't impact climate lol' or 'obviously you don't even care about the heat death of the universe'. While we shouldn't paralyse ourselves with existential guilt, evoking apocalyptic scenarios in a policy discussion is usually intended to derail discussion and prevent the emergence of consensus, ime.