3 ms·
>If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern of human behaviour is clear: they could cause immense, species-level damage
by psychoslave 3y ago
>If we're talking about nuclear weapons, for example, the tech is clear, the pattern of human behaviour is clear: they could cause immense, species-level damage. There's really little to argue about.
Now, this strikes me with how in different topics like pesticides, we are not at all taking things so seriously as nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are arguably a mere small anecdote on species-level damage compared to pesticides.
- kolektiv 3y agoI agree with you on that - there are very real, very well-evidenced, species-level harms (x-risks, if you really must) happening right now: pesticide-induced biodiversity loss, soil erosion/loss, ocean acidification, ice shelf melting, and on and on. These are real and quantifiable, and we know of ways to address them (not without cost/pain). It actually makes me quite angry that as much effort is being wasted on regulating tiny theoretical risks as it is when we are failing on a planetary scale on large concrete risks.