4 ms·

Article does not try to answer it's title question so I guess that it was added to make it more clickable. - "no one deserves such excess, that people would be

by jocoda 3y ago

Article does not try to answer it's title question so I guess that it was added to make it more clickable. - "no one deserves such excess, that people would be better off morally and psychologically without it" The extremes of what we have achieved - both good and bad mark out the features of humanity. We are not good or bad, we're animals functioning in nature, and nature's one core characteristic is competition, competition in everything. I think we're really good at competing within our environment. So good in fact, that we're hitting the limits of our environment in many ways. Bacteria in a petri dish go through rapid growth, stability and then inevitably reach the final death phase. I wonder it that's what awaits us. I hope that we can self modify quickly enough to morph into something other than human because our humanity is the defining feature that got us to where we are right now. edit - grammar

Voultapher 3y ago
Stopping manmade biosphere destruction is easy, it only requires fundamental political, economic and cultural changes in every single country all at once. Our political, economic and cultural systems are all rooted in growth. We define wealth as owning and using more than before. Our economies and pensions etc. are built on the expectation of continuous growth. Our cultures revolve in large parts around wealth. I think the question is no longer what can we do to prevent billions from dying, rather our decisions today will decide how many billions. Side-note: The perspective above is human centric or supremacist depending on who you ask. We share this world with so many other lifeforms, as of now they don't have a seat at the table. What if we manage to save humans and smartphones from extinction but only us? Is that a world worth living in? To quote Tom Murphy: > Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life. From https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  > What if we manage to save humans and smartphones from extinction but only us? Is that a world worth living in? Yes it is. I can’t believe that is even a question. It would be no worse than living on a colony on Mars or the moon.
  - Voultapher 3y ago
    What makes you special? Let's build a world only for white people, we didn't deliberately murder all non-whites, but eh, it was unavoidable. You might now think, hey that's not the same thing. That line is arbitrary, it's called white supremacy. And what you are suggesting is human supremacy. A world by humans for humans and no one else!
    - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
      Equating the difference between humans and non-human animals with racial differences is horribly racist and is recycling a very old racist trope.
      - Voultapher 3y ago
        Please explain why committing a genocide against orangutans and countless other species is fine, but doing the same to humans based on their skin color is wrong. In my viewpoint both are wrong, I fail to see why only one of them would be wrong.
  - RGamma 3y ago
    Throwing away the incredible beauty of life for consumerist banality... Maybe take a last look at what we're destroying and you may reconsider. God doesn't exist; else he would stop us.
- lazide 3y ago
  ‘easy’ Remember, you can’t stop the engine while it’s running or everyone starves to death, and not figuring out useful alternatives (and getting them setup and working and all the major kinks ironed out) will stop the engine.

by jocoda 3y ago

Voultapher 3y ago

Stopping manmade biosphere destruction is easy, it only requires fundamental political, economic and cultural changes in every single country all at once. Our political, economic and cultural systems are all rooted in growth. We define wealth as owning and using more than before. Our economies and pensions etc. are built on the expectation of continuous growth. Our cultures revolve in large parts around wealth. I think the question is no longer what can we do to prevent billions from dying, rather our decisions today will decide how many billions. Side-note: The perspective above is human centric or supremacist depending on who you ask. We share this world with so many other lifeforms, as of now they don't have a seat at the table. What if we manage to save humans and smartphones from extinction but only us? Is that a world worth living in? To quote Tom Murphy: > Energy transition aspirations are similar. The goal is powering modernity, not addressing the sixth mass extinction. Sure, it could mitigate the CO2 threat (to modernity), but why does the fox care when its decline ultimately traces primarily to things like deforestation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural runoff, pollution, pesticides, mining, manufacturing, or in short: modernity. Pursuit of a giant energy infrastructure replacement requires tremendous material extraction—directly driving many of these ills—only to then provide the energetic means to keep doing all these same things that abundant evidence warns is a prescription for termination of the community of life. From https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/03/lets-make-a-deal/

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> What if we manage to save humans and smartphones from extinction but only us? Is that a world worth living in? Yes it is. I can’t believe that is even a question. It would be no worse than living on a colony on Mars or the moon.
- Voultapher 3y ago
  What makes you special? Let's build a world only for white people, we didn't deliberately murder all non-whites, but eh, it was unavoidable. You might now think, hey that's not the same thing. That line is arbitrary, it's called white supremacy. And what you are suggesting is human supremacy. A world by humans for humans and no one else!
  - RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
    Equating the difference between humans and non-human animals with racial differences is horribly racist and is recycling a very old racist trope.
    - Voultapher 3y ago
      Please explain why committing a genocide against orangutans and countless other species is fine, but doing the same to humans based on their skin color is wrong. In my viewpoint both are wrong, I fail to see why only one of them would be wrong.
- RGamma 3y ago
  Throwing away the incredible beauty of life for consumerist banality... Maybe take a last look at what we're destroying and you may reconsider. God doesn't exist; else he would stop us.
lazide 3y ago
‘easy’ Remember, you can’t stop the engine while it’s running or everyone starves to death, and not figuring out useful alternatives (and getting them setup and working and all the major kinks ironed out) will stop the engine.