7 ms·

I get the impression you read that passage as a "feeling" or a "belief". I read it as the person quoted was citing scientific fact that, regardless whether the

I get the impression you read that passage as a "feeling" or a "belief". I read it as the person quoted was citing scientific fact that, regardless whether the outcome for humans is negative or positive, is an observable phenomenon in the physical world. I have no stake personally in whether it will turn out good or bad for humans, though of course I wish no ill upon future generations. However, the fact is I will be long gone before anyone will know what the impact will be.

happyscrappy 12y ago
How in the world would you get the impression that it was a feeling? You are projecting your and the medias doom mantra. Malthusian pessimists were wrong, sorry.
- datashovel 12y ago
  "doom" and "pessimism" are human constructs. In the objective physical world things "are" or "are not". The quote says that objectively verifiable facts indicate the earth is experiencing a mass extinction. There is no such thing as "doom" or "pessimism" besides that in which humans perceive it.
  - happyscrappy 12y ago
    Umm. We will not know if it was a mass extinction event for thousands of years. The great thing about science is if new data is found then the conclusions are changed but that bothers some people.
    - datashovel 12y ago
      With all due respect, in my mind whether scientific studies "bother someone" or not shouldn't really be a primary concern. What should be primary concern is understanding these phenomena and whether or not they truly have a long term impact on humanity's well being. Lack of water, mass starvation, and other similar problems should be more of a concern than whether a news story "bothers someone".
      - happyscrappy 12y ago
        Science does not care if it offends the left or the right and frankly the center is more reasonable. Starvation comes from bad logistics not some disproven Malthusian claptrap.
      - datashovel 12y ago
        I can't seem to respond to your most recent comment, but one thing I find interesting is I think (at least for my own sake) I've found a fundamental idea that may be what wedges people on these issues, but never seems to get expressed in these comment threads. I get the impression that many people with views which (for the most part) dismiss warnings about environmental issues, etc. have a fundamental belief that the earth will always be habitable by human beings. (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth). Whereas I, along with probably many others who are more sensitive to environmental issues, think this is far from a certainty. EDIT: Didn't know the numbers off the top of my head, but here's what Google had to say: 1) # of years where life has existed on Earth: 3.5 billion 2) # of years humans have been on earth: 200,000 So given these numbers humans have been around for 0.0057143% of the entire history of life on earth. EDIT #2: Given these numbers it seems uncertain we're anything more than an anomaly (ie. intelligent life) in the history of life on earth.
  - EC1 12y ago
    >There is no such thing as "doom" or "pessimism" besides that in which humans perceive it. Yes, and we are humans, who discuss things in a human context. You can discard anything with "it's just a human construct". Where are you trying to go with that?
    - datashovel 12y ago
      That's a fair question. Ok, so let's take the following statement: true && true === true I would posit there's no meaningful, or reasonable way you can attach some human emotion to the above statement. And it is true whether or not humans exist. Similar with events that occur on earth. If humans weren't around to experience a mass extinction there would be nothing "pessimistic" or "doomsday" about it. It would simply be an event that occurred in the history of planet earth. Now let's consider scientific studies. Imagine the following statement: We have done a large scale study on the number of species on earth. We identified X total species in 2003 and we identified X-1000 total species in 2004. Every year since this date we have identified fewer and fewer total number of species in this study. There is nothing inherently "pessimistic" or "doomsday" about the above statement. It is simply a statement of a scientific study. When someone reads it, however, perhaps they infer or speculate on what this means to the human race and attach some emotion or feeling about the above statement, whereas the statement itself is completely void of these emotions or feelings. So I would say that it's not the case that you can "discard anything" in this same manner. In fact I think it's an important thing to point out because that's an enormous, unfortunate, and critical misunderstanding of popular culture about what science is and what scientists do.
      - EC1 12y ago
        Never thought about it that way, thanks.
- coolsunglasses 12y ago
  Malthus wasn't a pessimist and I really wish people would stop projecting their views onto his work.

happyscrappy 12y ago

How in the world would you get the impression that it was a feeling? You are projecting your and the medias doom mantra. Malthusian pessimists were wrong, sorry.

datashovel 12y ago
"doom" and "pessimism" are human constructs. In the objective physical world things "are" or "are not". The quote says that objectively verifiable facts indicate the earth is experiencing a mass extinction. There is no such thing as "doom" or "pessimism" besides that in which humans perceive it.
- happyscrappy 12y ago
  Umm. We will not know if it was a mass extinction event for thousands of years. The great thing about science is if new data is found then the conclusions are changed but that bothers some people.
  - datashovel 12y ago
    With all due respect, in my mind whether scientific studies "bother someone" or not shouldn't really be a primary concern. What should be primary concern is understanding these phenomena and whether or not they truly have a long term impact on humanity's well being. Lack of water, mass starvation, and other similar problems should be more of a concern than whether a news story "bothers someone".
    - happyscrappy 12y ago
      Science does not care if it offends the left or the right and frankly the center is more reasonable. Starvation comes from bad logistics not some disproven Malthusian claptrap.
    - datashovel 12y ago
      I can't seem to respond to your most recent comment, but one thing I find interesting is I think (at least for my own sake) I've found a fundamental idea that may be what wedges people on these issues, but never seems to get expressed in these comment threads. I get the impression that many people with views which (for the most part) dismiss warnings about environmental issues, etc. have a fundamental belief that the earth will always be habitable by human beings. (forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth). Whereas I, along with probably many others who are more sensitive to environmental issues, think this is far from a certainty. EDIT: Didn't know the numbers off the top of my head, but here's what Google had to say: 1) # of years where life has existed on Earth: 3.5 billion 2) # of years humans have been on earth: 200,000 So given these numbers humans have been around for 0.0057143% of the entire history of life on earth. EDIT #2: Given these numbers it seems uncertain we're anything more than an anomaly (ie. intelligent life) in the history of life on earth.
- EC1 12y ago
  >There is no such thing as "doom" or "pessimism" besides that in which humans perceive it. Yes, and we are humans, who discuss things in a human context. You can discard anything with "it's just a human construct". Where are you trying to go with that?
  - datashovel 12y ago
    That's a fair question. Ok, so let's take the following statement: true && true === true I would posit there's no meaningful, or reasonable way you can attach some human emotion to the above statement. And it is true whether or not humans exist. Similar with events that occur on earth. If humans weren't around to experience a mass extinction there would be nothing "pessimistic" or "doomsday" about it. It would simply be an event that occurred in the history of planet earth. Now let's consider scientific studies. Imagine the following statement: We have done a large scale study on the number of species on earth. We identified X total species in 2003 and we identified X-1000 total species in 2004. Every year since this date we have identified fewer and fewer total number of species in this study. There is nothing inherently "pessimistic" or "doomsday" about the above statement. It is simply a statement of a scientific study. When someone reads it, however, perhaps they infer or speculate on what this means to the human race and attach some emotion or feeling about the above statement, whereas the statement itself is completely void of these emotions or feelings. So I would say that it's not the case that you can "discard anything" in this same manner. In fact I think it's an important thing to point out because that's an enormous, unfortunate, and critical misunderstanding of popular culture about what science is and what scientists do.
    - EC1 12y ago
      Never thought about it that way, thanks.
coolsunglasses 12y ago
Malthus wasn't a pessimist and I really wish people would stop projecting their views onto his work.