6 ms·

I think you overestimate how common common sense is And it's not a death wish. I think a lot of us realise that we probably don't offer a net positive to this

I think you overestimate how common common sense is And it's not a death wish. I think a lot of us realise that we probably don't offer a net positive to this earth, that our individual existence probably uses more resource than it provides. So technically that means that the earth would be better off without us, but that's not a death wish. We're not saying we're actively going to kill ourselves

sneak 3y ago
Using more resources than you provide is not a good indicator that the earth would be better off without you. This accounting strikes me as, let’s say, “uncharitable”. Hitler was bad for human society even if he pooped enriched uranium every 5 minutes. There are people who provide no resources whatsoever who make the Earth way, way better. Thinking about a human life’s value in terms of “resources in/resources out” suggests to me that you have little understanding of the true value of humans and human culture.
TeMPOraL 3y ago
> I think a lot of us realise that we probably don't offer a net positive to this earth, that our individual existence probably uses more resource than it provides. So technically that means that the earth would be better off without us, but that's not a death wish. I don't believe most people go as far as reasoning this way - I was thinking more about internalizing "the natural order of things" / "circle of life" stuff too much. The kind of thought pattern you described can be, for some, a rational and accurate view of their circumstances. It can also be a sign of depression (especially internalizing the "earth would be better off without me/us" part). It can, unfortunately, be also both.
ddj231 3y ago
It seems this fundamentally misunderstands human value. The value of a human is not whether they provide more resources than they consume. Imagine applying this to others, or a government systematically ridding citizens that are net negative. That would be a horrible genocide. This again reveals the wisdom of very basic biblical truths, like “all men are made in the image of God”. Meaning all humans have value, a special value different from animals and plants

sneak 3y ago

Using more resources than you provide is not a good indicator that the earth would be better off without you. This accounting strikes me as, let’s say, “uncharitable”. Hitler was bad for human society even if he pooped enriched uranium every 5 minutes. There are people who provide no resources whatsoever who make the Earth way, way better. Thinking about a human life’s value in terms of “resources in/resources out” suggests to me that you have little understanding of the true value of humans and human culture.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> I think a lot of us realise that we probably don't offer a net positive to this earth, that our individual existence probably uses more resource than it provides. So technically that means that the earth would be better off without us, but that's not a death wish. I don't believe most people go as far as reasoning this way - I was thinking more about internalizing "the natural order of things" / "circle of life" stuff too much. The kind of thought pattern you described can be, for some, a rational and accurate view of their circumstances. It can also be a sign of depression (especially internalizing the "earth would be better off without me/us" part). It can, unfortunately, be also both.

ddj231 3y ago

It seems this fundamentally misunderstands human value. The value of a human is not whether they provide more resources than they consume. Imagine applying this to others, or a government systematically ridding citizens that are net negative. That would be a horrible genocide. This again reveals the wisdom of very basic biblical truths, like “all men are made in the image of God”. Meaning all humans have value, a special value different from animals and plants