5 ms·

And with your comment, we now have both unhealthy extremes represented, viewpoint-wise. We need not spend all day tearfully mourning how Earth once was, yet we

And with your comment, we now have both unhealthy extremes represented, viewpoint-wise. We need not spend all day tearfully mourning how Earth once was, yet we also clearly shouldn't tarmac the whole thing and turn it into a Costco. It is very possible to embrace industrialized existence while acknowledging the importance of, and promoting, biodiversity.

DangitBobby 4y ago
There may be two extremes, but that doesn't mean both of them are wrong or "unhealthy".
- oliveshell 4y ago
  I'm sorry if I didn't communicate clearly. I think extremism is obviously very clearly unhealthy by definition. I have yet to encounter a single scenario in my entire existence wherein the fully-to-one-side-of-any-spectrum-you-might-imagine "extreme" point of view on how to solve any particular problem has been the best, most useful one (to my problem-solving brain, at least). We humans tend to do this thing where, when we're presented with evidence that a previously-held position might be wrong or harmful, our opinions massively pendulum-swing the other way and we have a hard time finding clear, nuanced middle ground. "Turns out sunlight gives you cancer, so stay indoors all the time! Avoid all sun exposure at all costs!," we say for a time. But no, it turns out that even though it is technically always doing harm to your DNA, sunlight is inescapably necessary for life and healthy immunological function. Life is complicated, and extremes are simply shit for problem-solving.
  - biomcgary 4y ago
    Are you familiar with the Overton window? According to it, you will never see successful extremes because what is considered extreme changes before the world does. I think you can find plenty of examples of historical extremism that is now normal (and "healthy").
    - oliveshell 4y ago
      My use of the word "extremism" may have been slightly misleading; by "extremes" above, I don't mean "ideas or movements popularly considered extreme", but rather literal extremes in the space of possible solutions to a given problem.
chitowneats 4y ago
Biodiversity is important insofar as it facilitates human flourishing. Flowery poetry about An Idealized Past doesn't have anything to say about that. Therefore, it is uninteresting.
- oliveshell 4y ago
  I'll admit here that I was biased by the apparently dismissive tone of your initial comment. This is a fair point that I agree with.
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    And I'll admit that I'm exhausted by eco-nostalgia and eco-doomerism, which led me to comment dismissively. I understand how that can be off-putting and unpersuasive.
- beedeebeedee 4y ago
  So you believe that the whole world is only important to the extent that it serves us?
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Yes, with all that implies. There may be other habitable planets in the universe but I do not care about them. I care about Earth because that is where I live. I don't think there is any meaningful trade-offs to be made between what is good for Earth the planet and what is good for humans. That doesn't mean that I want Earth to be a hyper industrialized Forge World, but my reasoning is because that would not be a good place for humans to live.
    - beedeebeedee 4y ago
      > Yes, with all that implies. I'm having a hard time responding in a way that meets the Hacker News guidelines. I don't want to attribute to you the implications (slavery, slaughter, environmental destruction, etc), because I have a hard time believing you actually mean that (or perhaps you thought I was only referring to the mineral aspect of the world and not the life that lives in it). I understand that you might object to slavery being implicit in your belief (because you make a special carve out for only humans mattering)- but understand that up until recently, in many cultures many people were not considered human. The most substantive thing I can suggest is to read Hegel's master slave dialectic, and consider the upshot- that by viewing others as only being instrumental, you inhibit the development of your own consciousness.
CalRobert 4y ago
For what it's worth, I am not advocating some sort of primitivist disease-ridden Utopia where bears roam by my door. I am saying that we have utterly destroyed huge swaths of the animal kingdom and maybe should try not doing that.
- oliveshell 4y ago
  I completely agree-- and, upon re-reading, it wasn't entirely fair of me to cast your comment as representing an "unhealthy extreme", so I'm sorry about that. That's what I get for trying to make a nuanced point hastily!

DangitBobby 4y ago

There may be two extremes, but that doesn't mean both of them are wrong or "unhealthy".

oliveshell 4y ago
I'm sorry if I didn't communicate clearly. I think extremism is obviously very clearly unhealthy by definition. I have yet to encounter a single scenario in my entire existence wherein the fully-to-one-side-of-any-spectrum-you-might-imagine "extreme" point of view on how to solve any particular problem has been the best, most useful one (to my problem-solving brain, at least). We humans tend to do this thing where, when we're presented with evidence that a previously-held position might be wrong or harmful, our opinions massively pendulum-swing the other way and we have a hard time finding clear, nuanced middle ground. "Turns out sunlight gives you cancer, so stay indoors all the time! Avoid all sun exposure at all costs!," we say for a time. But no, it turns out that even though it is technically always doing harm to your DNA, sunlight is inescapably necessary for life and healthy immunological function. Life is complicated, and extremes are simply shit for problem-solving.
- biomcgary 4y ago
  Are you familiar with the Overton window? According to it, you will never see successful extremes because what is considered extreme changes before the world does. I think you can find plenty of examples of historical extremism that is now normal (and "healthy").
  - oliveshell 4y ago
    My use of the word "extremism" may have been slightly misleading; by "extremes" above, I don't mean "ideas or movements popularly considered extreme", but rather literal extremes in the space of possible solutions to a given problem.

chitowneats 4y ago

Biodiversity is important insofar as it facilitates human flourishing. Flowery poetry about An Idealized Past doesn't have anything to say about that. Therefore, it is uninteresting.

oliveshell 4y ago
I'll admit here that I was biased by the apparently dismissive tone of your initial comment. This is a fair point that I agree with.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  And I'll admit that I'm exhausted by eco-nostalgia and eco-doomerism, which led me to comment dismissively. I understand how that can be off-putting and unpersuasive.
beedeebeedee 4y ago
So you believe that the whole world is only important to the extent that it serves us?
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Yes, with all that implies. There may be other habitable planets in the universe but I do not care about them. I care about Earth because that is where I live. I don't think there is any meaningful trade-offs to be made between what is good for Earth the planet and what is good for humans. That doesn't mean that I want Earth to be a hyper industrialized Forge World, but my reasoning is because that would not be a good place for humans to live.
  - beedeebeedee 4y ago
    > Yes, with all that implies. I'm having a hard time responding in a way that meets the Hacker News guidelines. I don't want to attribute to you the implications (slavery, slaughter, environmental destruction, etc), because I have a hard time believing you actually mean that (or perhaps you thought I was only referring to the mineral aspect of the world and not the life that lives in it). I understand that you might object to slavery being implicit in your belief (because you make a special carve out for only humans mattering)- but understand that up until recently, in many cultures many people were not considered human. The most substantive thing I can suggest is to read Hegel's master slave dialectic, and consider the upshot- that by viewing others as only being instrumental, you inhibit the development of your own consciousness.

CalRobert 4y ago

For what it's worth, I am not advocating some sort of primitivist disease-ridden Utopia where bears roam by my door. I am saying that we have utterly destroyed huge swaths of the animal kingdom and maybe should try not doing that.

oliveshell 4y ago
I completely agree-- and, upon re-reading, it wasn't entirely fair of me to cast your comment as representing an "unhealthy extreme", so I'm sorry about that. That's what I get for trying to make a nuanced point hastily!