3 ms·

We had a good run, now it is time to scratch this evolutionary iteration as well and start from a clean slate again. There were mass extinction events before al

We had a good run, now it is time to scratch this evolutionary iteration as well and start from a clean slate again. There were mass extinction events before also and life restarted in a new form. It is time now for the same to happen, we are not capable of learning and behaving. While we might have advanced further than any species on Earth before, we are an evolutionary failure nevertheless. And what do you do with bad code? You rewrite it.

phito 1y ago
I would say most people are capable of learning and behaving. But our system is riddled with cancerous tumors that are trying to accumulate all resources to the detriment of the rest of the system.
- aydyn 1y ago
  Its easy to want to blame a few villians, but the problem is the collective consumption habits and preferences of us all.
  - koiueo 1y ago
    > collective consumption habits and preferences of us all ... in the first-world bubble
    - aydyn 1y ago
      Not at all, its more like human nature. For example, illegal logging in Brazil: it isn't mega corporations with evil billionaires at the helm, its small every day people who just want to make a better life for themselves. There's a hypothetical from an Oxford debate that I am struggling to find that was something like this: If you are poor family and starving and for every day you could press a button and giant plume of CO2 would get released, but your child would not starve, would not get disease and would lead a fulfilled life, would you press that button? Every parent would smash that button until their hand bled. In the first world bubble, we have this button (more or less) but every person on earth would want this button too.
  - phito 1y ago
    You're not wrong. I think both are bad and the former is enabling the later. also I want to clarify that my analogy was more about companies than about billionaires
  - autoexec 1y ago
    Our collective consumption habits and preferences are primarily shaped, limited, and controlled by a few villains. What you can afford and what is available to you in the first place matters most.
- OutOfHere 1y ago
  I blame the "debt fueled " economy, basically our whole financial system, where companies can take big debts to do anything at the expense of the environment. Banks especially love funding fossil fuel projects. This financial system will have to collapse under its own weight of its exponential debt. Once we return to a more grounded concept of money, perhaps gold based, where debts are a lot more controlled due to an absence of uncontrolled moneyprinting, growth can then slow down, allowing us more time to digest what's actually good for us and what's not.
the__alchemist 1y ago
It might be the Great Filter; something intrinsic to evolution. I hope you're right.
sershe 1y ago
We are talking about micro plastics, the specific harms of which aren't even quantified that well (DALY?), and their future impact given current climate with regard to environmental tradeoffs. Now, what would your comment look like, for example, in context of adopting coal, that is demonstrably much much worse for health and environment and also was adopted when there was hardly any law or public pressure to protect nature? If we extrapolate the catastrophising it would seem downright apocalyptic. And yet, coal adoption unambiguously led to increased life expectancy and quality of life. Now let's do the tradeoff for plastics :)

phito 1y ago

I would say most people are capable of learning and behaving. But our system is riddled with cancerous tumors that are trying to accumulate all resources to the detriment of the rest of the system.

aydyn 1y ago
Its easy to want to blame a few villians, but the problem is the collective consumption habits and preferences of us all.
- koiueo 1y ago
  > collective consumption habits and preferences of us all ... in the first-world bubble
  - aydyn 1y ago
    Not at all, its more like human nature. For example, illegal logging in Brazil: it isn't mega corporations with evil billionaires at the helm, its small every day people who just want to make a better life for themselves. There's a hypothetical from an Oxford debate that I am struggling to find that was something like this: If you are poor family and starving and for every day you could press a button and giant plume of CO2 would get released, but your child would not starve, would not get disease and would lead a fulfilled life, would you press that button? Every parent would smash that button until their hand bled. In the first world bubble, we have this button (more or less) but every person on earth would want this button too.
- phito 1y ago
  You're not wrong. I think both are bad and the former is enabling the later. also I want to clarify that my analogy was more about companies than about billionaires
- autoexec 1y ago
  Our collective consumption habits and preferences are primarily shaped, limited, and controlled by a few villains. What you can afford and what is available to you in the first place matters most.
OutOfHere 1y ago
I blame the "debt fueled " economy, basically our whole financial system, where companies can take big debts to do anything at the expense of the environment. Banks especially love funding fossil fuel projects. This financial system will have to collapse under its own weight of its exponential debt. Once we return to a more grounded concept of money, perhaps gold based, where debts are a lot more controlled due to an absence of uncontrolled moneyprinting, growth can then slow down, allowing us more time to digest what's actually good for us and what's not.

the__alchemist 1y ago

It might be the Great Filter; something intrinsic to evolution. I hope you're right.

sershe 1y ago

We are talking about micro plastics, the specific harms of which aren't even quantified that well (DALY?), and their future impact given current climate with regard to environmental tradeoffs. Now, what would your comment look like, for example, in context of adopting coal, that is demonstrably much much worse for health and environment and also was adopted when there was hardly any law or public pressure to protect nature? If we extrapolate the catastrophising it would seem downright apocalyptic. And yet, coal adoption unambiguously led to increased life expectancy and quality of life. Now let's do the tradeoff for plastics :)