3 ms·
The guy I was responding to was literally a nihilist and didn't see the point in humanity persisting. While it may be true primitive tribes sometimes had satis
by exoverito 3y ago
The guy I was responding to was literally a nihilist and didn't see the point in humanity persisting.
While it may be true primitive tribes sometimes had satisfying lifestyles with relatively little wealth, we are far beyond the carrying capacity of hunter gatherer modalities, and modern people have the expectation that their lives will generally improve. If it becomes harder to save wealth, own a home, and start a family, then people will defect from the current system. It will be a serious risk factor for societal instability, as we can already observe.
- mrtesthah 3y agoI don't see nihilism reflected in his comment. I see someone drawing attention to unstated assumptions embedded in our society about technological/social/civilizational progress. Unfortunately earth has basic physical limits that simply do not permit an indefinite growth-based social order. When wealth is produced by depleting non-renewable resources and destroying natural systems keeping the earth in balance, that wealth will inevitably lose its purpose. Choosing a social order that values human life and the wealth of the natural world is not nihilistic. Choosing a social order in which the natural world is destroyed to increase the number of 0s in a bank account is.