12 ms·
Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always p
by Depurator 3y ago
Certainly, it was just more of a general criticism toward such a view, as leading to long term degradation of the world. I totally get how humans would always protitize humanity first, but in the long term we have some issues such as overfishing, global warming, biodiversity loss etc. as a result. But the esiest would of course to not belive in thos issues, and have cool toys
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- chaostheory 3y agoWhat you described is still human centric. Nature has survived several extinction level events and I’m sure it will survive more. If humanity changes the current environment enough, then it will no longer be the once ideal environment to that continues to sustain humanity indefinitely. Going on a tangent, a lot of environmentalists have a marketing problem.
- luckystarr 3y agoNature will die with 100% certainty. That is a verified fact due to the coming life-cycle changes of our sun. Nothing will survive that. Only humans have a chance to save "nature" by bringing life along to the stars. Not sure if we will be able to pull it off, but I see no other option.
- Thiez 3y agoSure! On the other hand, if we kill ourselves off before that happens, for example by making the planet unlivable for humans, then that chance is also gone. Getting to that level of technological advancement is a marathon, not a sprint.
- educaysean 3y agoSo more humans is value neutral but more earth-like planets is value positive? Your standards seem bizarre. Can you please elaborate?
- Depurator 3y agoAs i replied to the sibling comment, coming from another species perspective it would be reasonable to assume that a world optimized to fulfill the need of another species, such as humans would be seen as negative. It's not like they can enact their discontent, so i would argue we have to account for other species as well when we remodel the natural world. Evolutionary adaptation takes a while, so its not nice to change things fast.
- Sammi 3y agoThose that can adapt quickly will be quite happy about it. So who gets to set the metric?
- alexey-salmin 3y agoYou can't even define "degradation" without humans around. The planet itself doesn't care, nor does the fish. Extending human empathy to non-human processes is peak anthropocentrism.
- vasco 3y agoI think you can define degradation. I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around. I can measure this degradation in planets without humans or model out the degradation in a future where humans are extinct, and call certain situations objectively worse than others under that yardstick. Maybe I misunderstood because it seems you're claiming if there's no humans around it's impossible to model any phenomena, but we possess abstract thought to make up those situations and define things like degradation in the absence of humans.
- robertlagrant 3y agoYou, a human, can define degradation. So your prerequisite to degradation measurement requires humans?
- alexey-salmin 3y ago> I can make objective claims that less biodiversity is worse than more biodiversity and use it to measure degradation without humans around. While the amount of biodiversity can be measured objectively, the notion of it being "good" is completely made up. You need humans to judge what's "good" and which means that for any "good" kind of future humans are essential and are more important than say biodiversity.
- FredPret 3y agoIf biodiversity is good (and I say it is, but it’s a human judgement), then human civilization is also good, and for the same reason: it represents life, complexity, activity, and progress.
- CatWChainsaw 3y ago