all 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

Glad I live now then 100 years from now, I’ll be dead before the earth implodes

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    The soviet union wasn't exactly great environmental stewards either. Perhaps the problem is a technological gap between industrilization and sustainability.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago*

    China also pollutes significantly more than India, even if the Chinese per person emission is lower than some other developed nations.

    Plus, Capitalists invented the newer green power used by China and instead China invented bigger coal power plants.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 6 hours ago (6 children)

    Meh. I'm no fan of capitalism, but I'd say the problem is humanity itself, or maybe an evolutionary system that favors short sighted local advantage at the expense of eventual extinction.

    I already posted the great filter today, so...

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Evolution only cares about passing on genes. It's rare in the animal kingdom for menopause to exist. For the most part there's no point in an animal living if it's unable to mate. Scientists have the "grandmother hypothesis" for why this happens in a few whales, humans and some chimps: in a species where the grandmother might help care for a baby that has some of her genes, the grandmother can be useful to the mechanism of passing on genes even if she's no longer able to pass on her own.

    That means that a creature might care about how the world looks maybe 25 years past the point where it can have offspring. Caring about environmental degradation that takes place on a multi-century scale is just not something that evolution prepared us for. Why would it? No creature in history has ever been able to modify its environment the way humans can.

    Viruses are actually a good analogy. A virus depends on a living host. But, viruses often kill their hosts. Like humans, it can actually modify its environment in a way that that environment becomes toxic to the virus's existence. That seems bad. For any individual virus though, its "life" is so short compared to the life of the host that any mechanism that made it try to avoid killing the host would just be a useless genetic trait that would not be optimal.

    Humans have these immense brains, and they allow us to do things that aren't simply the result of evolutionary drives. But, we're still animals. Those drives really structure everything we do.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 child)

    Yes but some systems push the bad side of human and other the good side

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 hours ago* (1 child)

    The systems that can feed the most bodies and enslave the most minds conquer, Borg-like, the ones the feed & enslave less. Wars grow bigger as their opponents grow bigger. Eventually we are all engulfed in one fragile system that has to fail but once.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 hours ago

    Ackshuuully there's no such thing as overpopulation or overconsumption or carrying capacity overshoot. Those are myths made up by ecofascists, a very real and very scary right-wing political movement. The obvious true solution is for the whole world to come together and agree to follow my preferred system of government (or absence thereof) and then there will be plenty of resources to go around for everybody and billions of humans can live sustainably ever after.

    And if you say that's unrealistic and won't happen, it must be because you are a literal exterminist Nazi who hates life and wants to do eugenics by genociding everybody- especially the brown ones and the poor ones- even though you didn't say that- but come on, we all know you were thinking it.

    So be ashamed of yourself, you Nazi, and go away now so I can win this argument by default- before I'm forced to post the well supported counterargument which I totally have.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    COVID-19 has drawn much of this discussion into the public sphere. Whereas it’s generally seen as poor taste to refer to groups of people as infections, diseases, and plagues – for good reason – this seems to be forgiven when the group being referred to is non-specific. Hand waving at humanity in general, as if being vague is ethical bulletproofing, gets a pass. It is relatively common today to find another viral tweet with tens of thousands of likes gesturing towards the clearing waters of Venetian canals, or the wandering deer of Japan navigating neon-lit city centres and declaring that the Earth is healing itself; the smog-cleared skies of California receive a probing enquiry – perhaps we were the real virus all along?

    Strange as though it may seem, musings of this kind have become more and more common as the weeks have gone by and the evidence of nature ‘reclaiming’ previously populated areas has begun to accumulate. Suffice it to say, there is more than a little of the eco-fascist ideology floating around in the assumptions of that question; when somebody asks if humanity is the ‘real virus’, they set up a system in which the Earth is a being and humanity a problem that needs to be solved. The solution being proposed is rarely stated outright, but it doesn’t have to be because it’s implicit in the question; you cure a virus by getting rid of it. Beneath the surface level wonder at seeing a wild boar shuffle across Italian cobblestones, there is a lurking belief that maybe the world would be better off without us. Or, more commonly, the world would be better off without some of us, with who that some is being left as a blank to be filled in by the subconscious of the questioner. Unquestionably, whoever that somebody is, will be someone else.

    [...]

    The language of the eco-fascist claims that human beings are the problem, and that with their self-isolation – that is, their removal from the system – has come ecological recovery. Such individualised and atomised analysis prevents the ever-important systematic approach; the real problem is capitalism, and it is with the interruptions and staggerings of capitalism that recovery has come along. Deeply embedded in the language of the right wing, the misattribution of the worst elements of capitalism to the mere existence of human beings exists as a dual weapon.

    Firstly, it allows them to turn their vitriol upon individuals... Secondly, it allows them to imply a connection between the two; to link the existence of capitalism to the existence of individuals and bind them together ideologically; to present capitalism as human and therefore inevitable and inescapable.

    Fraser, J. (2020). Eco-Fascism: The Rhetoric of the Virus. Organise Magazine. Archived at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/jay-fraser-eco-fascism-the-rhetoric-of-the-virus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (1 child)

    Humans have beenaaround a lot longer than capitalism, and we didn't destroy the planet until recently.

    The problem is not humans, as many small groups of people across the globe have proven they can live with the environment, and take care of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Power not derived from the movement of animals is very new. The industrial revolution is what greatly changed the damage humans can do to the environment. The industrial revolution led to capitalism, not the other way around.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago* (last edited 58 minutes ago)

    I mean, I guess in theory that’s how it’s supposed to work. Imagine something just outside our grasp, like a structuralists geometry of social dynamics. You might never know what kind of intelligent social system with generational knowledge actually has the opportunity to bypass the great filter. Evolution is a never ending game of FAFO. Maybe it stands to reason, the Neanderthals went extinct… such intelligent life forms tend to kill each other and eventually themselves?

    I wonder if an advanced fungus based intelligence could do better. Or a silicon crystalline one, on hotter planets, with much lower temporal awareness of course.

    Part of me wonders, if evolution can make a generally intelligent life form capable of advancing itself as a unit part in thanks to connective technology like the internet… and that’s in just a few hundred million years, what kind of life forms could theoretically exist with such abilities innate to their being? Perhaps in 30 billion years of evolution, might you come across a species that would find internet technology redundant and inefficient in contrast to their biological abilities?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 6 hours ago

    So true. All fed by greed.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

    We aren't gonna let another asteroid beat us to it. Not again, anyways.

  • source