3 ms·

I can't be the only one who is extremely tired of these semi-frequent utterly nihilistic "I'm sad to be part of the human species, we're killing the planet" pos

I can't be the only one who is extremely tired of these semi-frequent utterly nihilistic "I'm sad to be part of the human species, we're killing the planet" posts and comments, especially when the posts themselves are possibly misleading (whales aren't included? come on). I don't know about you but I'm quite happy to be alive and reasonably healthy, and I hope to have many children, I hope mankind doesn't go extinct anytime soon, and I'm not going to eat any bugs or fake meat or any of that. nihilistic platitudes like "how is there still an ecosystem?" are completely baffling to me—I don't understand what would make someone think that way. what could have caused this level of innate shame felt on behalf of one's species? the only thing I can think of is that people overestimate the power of mankind and underestimate the power of nature possibly due to living in dense urban environments surrounded by nothing but artificial creations of man all day every day, and this skews their perspective.

foxtacles 4y ago
You're not the only one. To anyone who's tired of reading those frequently espoused, virtually now mainstream, apparently self-hatred fueled viewpoints, or to those who are interested in positive outlooks on humanity, I can recommend this book: https://www.superabundance.com/ https://www.superabundance.com/ and this news aggregator: https://www.humanprogress.org/ https://www.humanprogress.org/
seti0Cha 4y ago
It's more a factor of dislocated moral feelings. If you decide humans aren't special, then you can go one of two ways with the moral feelings you had towards humanity: you can broaden them to a larger category that you still think is special, such as mammals, animals, all living things, etc, or you can narrow them down to some arbitrary set that you happen to be fond of, like your family, your friends, or yourself. Both are problematic to those who still think humans are special.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
chinchilla2020 4y ago
It isn't a skewed perspective. Our civilization passed the carrying capacity of the planet half a century ago. Resources are being consumed at a far greater rate, despite advances in technology. You don't need to be depressed or nihilistic about it. You can still live a great life and so can your children. The reality is that we need to start reducing consumption over the long term to prepare for the inevitable. Being aware is the first step. The wrong path is to close our eyes and assume Elon Musk is going to transport us to another world, or that some unrealistic hollywood technology will magically terraform the planet and bring back the glaciers and mammoths.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >Our civilization passed the carrying capacity of the planet half a century ago. Can you provide some evidence of this?
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    Not directly answering the half century remark, but this is related - https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      I don't see any data, just claims and solutions.
goldenchrome 4y ago
I am with you my friend. I will not eat the bugs.
agalunar 4y ago
> I don't know about you but I'm quite happy to be alive and reasonably healthy I think the important thing to contemplate is that this might be at the expense of other people, living or yet to be born. Not that we've done anything wrong – just that the circumstances that make this possible for us might preclude it for others. > nihilistic platitudes like "how is there still an ecosystem?" are completely baffling to me For some people, I think, it's jarring to realize that much of the world, including life for other people and creatures, is very different from anything they've experienced, and that the future could look very different from the present – despite it having not changed much so far in their lives. And the feeling of that realization might be the reason for platitudes like that.
- adamrezich 4y ago
  > I think the important thing to contemplate is that [being happy to be alive and reasonably healthy] might be at the expense of other people, living or yet to be born. Not that we've done anything wrong – just that the circumstances that make this possible for us might preclude it for others this is called the natural order of things. nature is competition. this is all self-evident. all of our ancestors innately understood this. what exactly has made us forget it? again, the only thing I can think of is sheer societal decadence, being so far removed from nature that we only have an abstract concept of it.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - virgildotcodes 4y ago
    >again, the only thing I can think of is sheer societal decadence, being so far removed from nature that we only have an abstract concept of it. I feel like this is so ironic in a conversation about how we're utterly destroying the natural world.
  - DFHippie 4y ago
    > this is called the natural order of things The natural order of things is only important inasmuch as it is a stable, desirable order. Lots of things we don't like happen in nature: starvation, disease, rape, murder, torture, isolation, immense pain. If these things happen to us we don't blithely say, "Ah, the natural order of things. It's all good!" People want to preserve the natural order because they like the things they find in it. These things make them happy. Also, they like security. The natural order has persisted, with occasional mass extinctions and other disasters, for quite some time, so splitting off from the natural order into something that holds no promise of stability and security doesn't seem like a good choice. But to the extent possible people who value nature and stability of existing ecosystems are still picking and choosing for themselves from what nature offers. No disease, please. Delayed senescence, please. No freezing to death or drowning. Less tooth decay. And I suspect you don't adopt a throw-up-my-hands-and-let-shit-happen philosophy in your own life. You look both ways before you cross the street. You don't eat every mushroom you see. You stop walking when you come to a cliff edge. So basically "[being happy to be alive and reasonably healthy] might be at the expense of other people, living or yet to be born. Not that we've done anything wrong – just that the circumstances that make this possible for us might preclude it for others" is just applying this same foresight and judgment more broadly. The qualitative difference is that it is not selfish. It is the difference between "I shouldn't step on this landmine" and "I shouldn't place a landmine where someone else will step". Why do this? Again, the same old reason: other people's happiness makes you happy; other people's sadness makes you sad. When we want the natural order, it's only by accident.

foxtacles 4y ago

You're not the only one. To anyone who's tired of reading those frequently espoused, virtually now mainstream, apparently self-hatred fueled viewpoints, or to those who are interested in positive outlooks on humanity, I can recommend this book: https://www.superabundance.com/ https://www.superabundance.com/ and this news aggregator: https://www.humanprogress.org/ https://www.humanprogress.org/

seti0Cha 4y ago

It's more a factor of dislocated moral feelings. If you decide humans aren't special, then you can go one of two ways with the moral feelings you had towards humanity: you can broaden them to a larger category that you still think is special, such as mammals, animals, all living things, etc, or you can narrow them down to some arbitrary set that you happen to be fond of, like your family, your friends, or yourself. Both are problematic to those who still think humans are special.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

chinchilla2020 4y ago

It isn't a skewed perspective. Our civilization passed the carrying capacity of the planet half a century ago. Resources are being consumed at a far greater rate, despite advances in technology. You don't need to be depressed or nihilistic about it. You can still live a great life and so can your children. The reality is that we need to start reducing consumption over the long term to prepare for the inevitable. Being aware is the first step. The wrong path is to close our eyes and assume Elon Musk is going to transport us to another world, or that some unrealistic hollywood technology will magically terraform the planet and bring back the glaciers and mammoths.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>Our civilization passed the carrying capacity of the planet half a century ago. Can you provide some evidence of this?
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  Not directly answering the half century remark, but this is related - https://www.overshootday.org/ https://www.overshootday.org/
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    I don't see any data, just claims and solutions.

goldenchrome 4y ago

I am with you my friend. I will not eat the bugs.

agalunar 4y ago

> I don't know about you but I'm quite happy to be alive and reasonably healthy I think the important thing to contemplate is that this might be at the expense of other people, living or yet to be born. Not that we've done anything wrong – just that the circumstances that make this possible for us might preclude it for others. > nihilistic platitudes like "how is there still an ecosystem?" are completely baffling to me For some people, I think, it's jarring to realize that much of the world, including life for other people and creatures, is very different from anything they've experienced, and that the future could look very different from the present – despite it having not changed much so far in their lives. And the feeling of that realization might be the reason for platitudes like that.

adamrezich 4y ago
> I think the important thing to contemplate is that [being happy to be alive and reasonably healthy] might be at the expense of other people, living or yet to be born. Not that we've done anything wrong – just that the circumstances that make this possible for us might preclude it for others this is called the natural order of things. nature is competition. this is all self-evident. all of our ancestors innately understood this. what exactly has made us forget it? again, the only thing I can think of is sheer societal decadence, being so far removed from nature that we only have an abstract concept of it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- virgildotcodes 4y ago
  >again, the only thing I can think of is sheer societal decadence, being so far removed from nature that we only have an abstract concept of it. I feel like this is so ironic in a conversation about how we're utterly destroying the natural world.
- DFHippie 4y ago
  > this is called the natural order of things The natural order of things is only important inasmuch as it is a stable, desirable order. Lots of things we don't like happen in nature: starvation, disease, rape, murder, torture, isolation, immense pain. If these things happen to us we don't blithely say, "Ah, the natural order of things. It's all good!" People want to preserve the natural order because they like the things they find in it. These things make them happy. Also, they like security. The natural order has persisted, with occasional mass extinctions and other disasters, for quite some time, so splitting off from the natural order into something that holds no promise of stability and security doesn't seem like a good choice. But to the extent possible people who value nature and stability of existing ecosystems are still picking and choosing for themselves from what nature offers. No disease, please. Delayed senescence, please. No freezing to death or drowning. Less tooth decay. And I suspect you don't adopt a throw-up-my-hands-and-let-shit-happen philosophy in your own life. You look both ways before you cross the street. You don't eat every mushroom you see. You stop walking when you come to a cliff edge. So basically "[being happy to be alive and reasonably healthy] might be at the expense of other people, living or yet to be born. Not that we've done anything wrong – just that the circumstances that make this possible for us might preclude it for others" is just applying this same foresight and judgment more broadly. The qualitative difference is that it is not selfish. It is the difference between "I shouldn't step on this landmine" and "I shouldn't place a landmine where someone else will step". Why do this? Again, the same old reason: other people's happiness makes you happy; other people's sadness makes you sad. When we want the natural order, it's only by accident.