>"We" >"Humanity" There's something profoundly saccharine and inaccurate about this conceit. The conception of being universally connected in any substantial

>"We" >"Humanity" There's something profoundly saccharine and inaccurate about this conceit. The conception of being universally connected in any substantial way to the the "human species" seems extremely artificial and doesn't describe real power relations in a useful way. I think it's more useful to explain what's happening and why it's happening, e.g. "The world has become x% unsustainable due to the actions of y, caused by simple incentives and lack of disincentives". Then again, that also feels fake because A) "the world" has zero inherent meaning, it only has any meaning because humans deem it so and B) "sustainable" is from the perspective of thinking that human life must keep growing on the scale of billions. Even global catastrophe would likely retain a core population from the perspective of some kind of human maximalist. Generating hypotheses upon the basis of dubious moral priors really causes some serious accuracy issues. Much easier to stick to "don't murder/torture people or animals", i.e. something literally everyone agrees with.