2 ms·

We have never applied this type of deployment so far. For example, fossil fuels -- we still can't control it. I'd argue that it's much better to live a simple

We have never applied this type of deployment so far. For example, fossil fuels -- we still can't control it. I'd argue that it's much better to live a simple life more connected to nature, even if that means more diseases and more manual labor. We might have a comfortable life in some ways, but this life is at the expense of the DEATH of millions of nonhuman organisms so we do not deserve it.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> We have never applied this type of deployment so far. For example, fossil fuels -- we still can't control it. Let's not forget that pretty much everything you consider nice and beneficial about modern existence - from advanced healthcare to opportunities to entertainment, even things as trivial as toilet paper or tissues or packaging or paint - is built on top of petrochemical engineering. Sure, we're dealing with some serious second-order consequences, but if we overcome them, we'll end up better than when we had "simple life more connected to nature". > I'd argue that it's much better to live a simple life more connected to nature, even if that means more diseases and more manual labor. Hard disagree. > this life is at the expense of the DEATH of millions of nonhuman organisms It's not like nature cares either way. Sure, we may be accelerating the disappearance of whole species, but even then we're more humane at the killing. It's really hard to do worse than nature, where every multicellular organism is constantly fighting against starvation, disease, or being assaulted and eaten alive.
nmeofthestate 3y ago
>For example, fossil fuels You're effectively arguing, on a website, that humanity should not have started the industrial revolution.