3 ms·

Everything changes. That is the problem, we might not see it but disease and even nature itself is in costant flux. It isn't because we are killing it off which

Everything changes. That is the problem, we might not see it but disease and even nature itself is in costant flux. It isn't because we are killing it off which is the misunderstanding. If the landscape for bacteria and viruses change we should assume we are just as susceptible to things. We humans like to think our lives as unchanging, immovable, irreplacable and staticly shaped."The 90s lives on!", it is a perfect example that we paint this illusion because it is hard to accept that from this point on everday second, minute, hours... so on will change and alter us. That alteration is irreversible even if we can change or shape the outcome. People are just uncomfortable with this idea.

adroniser 3y ago
that's like, really deep, man.
- Sparkyte 3y ago
  It is insane to think that not a single atom you were born with exists with you as an adult. Really brings up the Ship of Theseus vibes. Kind of leading, since it is hard to say exactly. Some guessitimates are 2%. But really that isn't a lot of what once was you.
  - tuukkah 3y ago
    Hmm, two percent of the atoms you were born with, or two percent of the atoms you consist of as an adult? (If former, it really is little, if latter, it's mostly because of the bulk added by normal growth.)
    - jmalicki 3y ago
      Even in the latter case it's still more like 50/50, which is still quite interesting.
    - Sparkyte 3y ago
      2% of what you originally had according to what some people say. However I can understand because even slowly the body replaces cells our body disposes of it through various means. Bone also gets replaced too over time, which is weird to think about.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- amelius 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching
seabass-labrax 3y ago
What you say is true, but 'the 90s' is not really a good example, because biology evolves measurably over millennia rather than decades. It might be hundreds to millions of years between a certain bacteria evolving and then becoming extinct, but in the Anthropocene we have accelerated the evolution and extinction of species by multiple orders of magnitude. For us to have killed a species of bacteria, discover that it's an important species for our health and then be trying to recreate it, all in less than a century, is too fast even for us. I am seriously concerned that we'll end up killing ourselves before our scientific, social and cultural knowledge starts to compensate for what can only be described as recklessness with just about everything we touch. You and I are important as persons and want to do loads of things in our lifetimes, but maybe it is worth leaving some things to future generations so as not to overwhelm our own.
- jhrmnn 3y ago
  > I am seriously concerned that we'll end up killing ourselves before our scientific, social and cultural knowledge starts to compensate for what can only be described as recklessness with just about everything we touch. Beautifully phrased. I arrived at the same view. I also find it a plausible variation on [1] as an explanation of the Fermi paradox—natural intelligence learns to undermine its own environment before it realizes it (due to complexity), destroying itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature...
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    > I also find it a plausible variation on [1] as an explanation of the Fermi paradox—natural intelligence learns to undermine its own environment before it realizes it (due to complexity), destroying itself. With that in mind, I feel as if it's almost a moral imperative for humanity to try its best not to succumb to destruction like that - out of principle, the determination to win a universal game that no species has ever won. Perhaps it might be even more poetic, albeit cruel, if it really is our destiny to destroy ourselves. To be cognizant of our biggest weakness as intelligent life, yet unable to deviate from the fatal course set out for us by nature would be the ultimate tragedy. I think the classical genre might be more hard-hitting without malevolent gods giving us an excuse for our failures. One step further is to ask how many people will have thought, as you and I have, these very thoughts before either humanity destroys itself or surmounts and escapes the fetters of its recklessness? Or will we just be perpetually lucky and get close to, but never quite reach destruction?

adroniser 3y ago

that's like, really deep, man.

Sparkyte 3y ago
It is insane to think that not a single atom you were born with exists with you as an adult. Really brings up the Ship of Theseus vibes. Kind of leading, since it is hard to say exactly. Some guessitimates are 2%. But really that isn't a lot of what once was you.
- tuukkah 3y ago
  Hmm, two percent of the atoms you were born with, or two percent of the atoms you consist of as an adult? (If former, it really is little, if latter, it's mostly because of the bulk added by normal growth.)
  - jmalicki 3y ago
    Even in the latter case it's still more like 50/50, which is still quite interesting.
  - Sparkyte 3y ago
    2% of what you originally had according to what some people say. However I can understand because even slowly the body replaces cells our body disposes of it through various means. Bone also gets replaced too over time, which is weird to think about.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
amelius 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Ching

seabass-labrax 3y ago

What you say is true, but 'the 90s' is not really a good example, because biology evolves measurably over millennia rather than decades. It might be hundreds to millions of years between a certain bacteria evolving and then becoming extinct, but in the Anthropocene we have accelerated the evolution and extinction of species by multiple orders of magnitude. For us to have killed a species of bacteria, discover that it's an important species for our health and then be trying to recreate it, all in less than a century, is too fast even for us. I am seriously concerned that we'll end up killing ourselves before our scientific, social and cultural knowledge starts to compensate for what can only be described as recklessness with just about everything we touch. You and I are important as persons and want to do loads of things in our lifetimes, but maybe it is worth leaving some things to future generations so as not to overwhelm our own.

jhrmnn 3y ago
> I am seriously concerned that we'll end up killing ourselves before our scientific, social and cultural knowledge starts to compensate for what can only be described as recklessness with just about everything we touch. Beautifully phrased. I arrived at the same view. I also find it a plausible variation on [1] as an explanation of the Fermi paradox—natural intelligence learns to undermine its own environment before it realizes it (due to complexity), destroying itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#It_is_the_nature...
- seabass-labrax 3y ago
  > I also find it a plausible variation on [1] as an explanation of the Fermi paradox—natural intelligence learns to undermine its own environment before it realizes it (due to complexity), destroying itself. With that in mind, I feel as if it's almost a moral imperative for humanity to try its best not to succumb to destruction like that - out of principle, the determination to win a universal game that no species has ever won. Perhaps it might be even more poetic, albeit cruel, if it really is our destiny to destroy ourselves. To be cognizant of our biggest weakness as intelligent life, yet unable to deviate from the fatal course set out for us by nature would be the ultimate tragedy. I think the classical genre might be more hard-hitting without malevolent gods giving us an excuse for our failures. One step further is to ask how many people will have thought, as you and I have, these very thoughts before either humanity destroys itself or surmounts and escapes the fetters of its recklessness? Or will we just be perpetually lucky and get close to, but never quite reach destruction?