4 ms·

> The cooling would only be temporary anyway. I’d say just do it till I no longer need the earth; you all can burn it to the ground once I’m gone.

adolph 2y ago
While post sentience nihilism is one way of looking at the world, another is to see the problem as a symptom of a deeper problem: https://tricycle.org/magazine/green-credo/ https://tricycle.org/magazine/green-credo/
- ruszki 2y ago
  I feel that this articles’ purpose is to keep the status quo. Especially, that it starts with a strawman, and even contradicts itself during dissecting that. I like the individualistic aspect, but it’s completely orthogonal to everything else in the article.
  - adolph 2y ago
    Do you think that in 1993 the below was a strawman? 1. We are stewards of the earth. 2. Resources are worth saving for future generations. 3. The future matters. 4. Time is running out. Clearly time has continued running out in the subsequent 30+ years.
    - ruszki 2y ago
      Yes, it’s a strawman even in ‘93, and time already ran out in the context of ‘93. It’s a strawman, because it’s so simplified that they lost all meaning. Except the first one which means even more than what was originally meant to be, but it’s not surprising from a “spritiual leader”. It’s easy to construct situations which contradicts the notion that anybody ever thought these things, or the opposite of these (e.g. the future matters, I give you 100 dollars now, but I shoot you in 10 minutes). When people says that we need to act now, or there will be consequences, the consequences are already happened in context of ‘93, or 100% they will happen (like collapse of Atlantic currents are certain now). Today, the consequences are wildly different.
      - adolph 2y ago
        The author expands and addresses each within the article. What marks of a strawman do you see within the author’s description?
        ruszki 2y ago
        > It’s a strawman, because it’s so simplified that they lost all meaning. In other words: nobody ever thought these. Thoughts are way more complex. Also writing more sentences without any substance is not expanding. Edit: to expand a little bit. Nobody thinks that time runs out. They think that time runs out about X in the context of Y. Even when people use the absolutist version there is always a context. Author transformed these to the usual religious absolutism nonsense with no good reason, except of course that absolutists statements are easier to attack, hence the strawman.

adolph 2y ago

While post sentience nihilism is one way of looking at the world, another is to see the problem as a symptom of a deeper problem: https://tricycle.org/magazine/green-credo/ https://tricycle.org/magazine/green-credo/

ruszki 2y ago
I feel that this articles’ purpose is to keep the status quo. Especially, that it starts with a strawman, and even contradicts itself during dissecting that. I like the individualistic aspect, but it’s completely orthogonal to everything else in the article.
- adolph 2y ago
  Do you think that in 1993 the below was a strawman? 1. We are stewards of the earth. 2. Resources are worth saving for future generations. 3. The future matters. 4. Time is running out. Clearly time has continued running out in the subsequent 30+ years.
  - ruszki 2y ago
    Yes, it’s a strawman even in ‘93, and time already ran out in the context of ‘93. It’s a strawman, because it’s so simplified that they lost all meaning. Except the first one which means even more than what was originally meant to be, but it’s not surprising from a “spritiual leader”. It’s easy to construct situations which contradicts the notion that anybody ever thought these things, or the opposite of these (e.g. the future matters, I give you 100 dollars now, but I shoot you in 10 minutes). When people says that we need to act now, or there will be consequences, the consequences are already happened in context of ‘93, or 100% they will happen (like collapse of Atlantic currents are certain now). Today, the consequences are wildly different.
    - adolph 2y ago
      The author expands and addresses each within the article. What marks of a strawman do you see within the author’s description?
      - ruszki 2y ago
        > It’s a strawman, because it’s so simplified that they lost all meaning. In other words: nobody ever thought these. Thoughts are way more complex. Also writing more sentences without any substance is not expanding. Edit: to expand a little bit. Nobody thinks that time runs out. They think that time runs out about X in the context of Y. Even when people use the absolutist version there is always a context. Author transformed these to the usual religious absolutism nonsense with no good reason, except of course that absolutists statements are easier to attack, hence the strawman.