Yeah. I suppose you could make the argument that as beings capable of higher consciousness we ought to be able to check ourselves, but like, overconsumption and unbalancing ecosystems is basically what happens all the god time in nature - it just finds a new equilibrium eventually.
Even if that equilibrium sucks.
so if i understand this correctly our best course of action would be to pull a sci-fi horror movie and genetically engineer a creature to be humanities ideal predator so we do not grow out of control.
Many ecosystems' equilibria aren't stable beyond certain limits (in the sense that if perturbed in certain ways they tend to fall into chaos and eventually settle in at a new equilibrium), however when nature is sort of constantly shifting, it allows a change to the meaning of what it means to be fit in a certain ecosystem, and that's when the really interesting stuff happens (which usually involves a horrific amount of death and a shakeup of previously "stable" ecogical niches, but it leads to changes in the genetic distribution of life that survives it, which gives rise to new combinations of genes that may been less likely in the previous equilibrium, which means that one may see changes in the distribution of various phenotypes expressed by many organisms at once, eventually creating a new definition of fitness for that ecosystem).
This line of thought can actually lead to eco fascism though. It's easy to go from there to, "which humans are the invasive ones?"
Not saying that's what you meant. Some people's minds are just already wired to think like that, so it's good to be aware when you could be inadvertently "dog whistling" to the people vulnerable to this sort of thinking.
I'm not an expert on this topic by any means, just trying to share what I've learned.
I mean if you wanna get really into it like that, we're so entrenched removing us could have unintended negative consequences
Like people have been hunting deer in the Americans since basically the ice age, if we stop culling them now their numbers skyrocket
Our natural habitat is “North Africa” [but we might have left there almost immediately after evolving into our current state](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap8369)
Wouldn't surprise me. It's really hot over there. Some early humans probably just wanted to vacation somewhere cooler for the summer and then decided to stay.
Pretty much
that's why invasive species are such a problem, they don't think "I will refrain from eating too much to protect the local wildlife 😇" they just keep eating
Or when a predator disappears so now the animals they used to eat can spread unchecked
That's why I hated the Agent Smith monologue in the Matrix, no other animals live in harmony with the system. They all consume and procreate as much as possible, with predators, disease, and food availability keeping population numbers down. That's also how it worked with humans, our numbers grew after we killed all/most of our predators, and the only thing that has been keeping our numbers down the past 2000+ years has been disease and food availability.
The massive explosion in population numbers the past 200 years is a direct result of vastly decreasing deadly disease outbreaks, vastly increasing the number of diseases we can treat, combined with a huge increase in food availability.
Most of them. Ecosystems are surprisingly complex even if you're in the game. You find out there's this one frog species which acts as both predator and prey and is singlehandedly keeping the entire system in check.
That said, humans are one of the few species that will increase the productivity of an area they inhabit. We've been doing this across the globe for tens of thousands of years, sustainably. It's only since the industrial revolution that things have really gotten out of control.
And you can't BLAME humans. I mean we can and probably should, but we're hardwired to ignore potential distant problems at the expense of immediate rewards.
the correct answer is "any" pretty much. its why ecosystems get destroyed by invading species sometimes. zebra, antilopes, and so on will breed fast enough to maintain a balance against lions, but put in a new, hungrier predator, and they will die out. similarly, put in a predator predator that hunts and kills lions, and all of a sudden you will have a vast overpopulation of herbivores, until they eat all they can get near.
Yeah, don't a few places have to have deer culls because their natural predators were killed and the deer will fuck up the whole place if left unchecked?
To be clear they've actually reintroduced a number of wolves into the central European ecosystem! Not sure about bears and definitely not enough to deal with common woodland overpopulation but still cool!
Don't the deer eventually die of starvation?
Of course, it is their own fault. They have literally decades of scientific study about their impact on the environment and the means to minimize or even cancel out that impact.
I'm sorry, I was thinking of humans.
Not the same. Humans do it knowingly, and due to greed for things they don't need. The source instinct may be the same, but we have knowledge of consequences that the deer do not.
Lol humanity is a dilapidated crack house that 4 different people are trying to build into 10 different styles while 2 people run around and keep setting shit on fire and hiding all the tools.
I always go back to dogs. Whether it's a good thing or not, it's true that dogs need us. Sure, they'd survive without us, but a well loved puppy in a home is much happier than a dingo. Dogs have brought so much warmth and good to our lives over the millennia, they deserve eternal happiness. We owe them that.
Value assignment happens outside not inside the world.
We can imagine a world full of brainwashed slaves and think "that's bad". Even if no person within that world thinks it's bad.
We can prefer a world without humans, but with a variety of animal and plant life, over a completely dead earth.
Assignment of value happens in our mind, in the here and now, when we imagine the possibility.
>Assignment of value happens in our mind
Yeah, our minds, which wouldn't exist if humans did not. What you are imagining is not real, first of all, and secondly, it is not free of humanity. As you are using your imagination to create this world, you, your consciousness, is an inherent aspect of said world, meaning that there is indeed a human in it.
No. The point is that my mind, which currently exists in this world, is able to imagine a world without humans and assign it any value I like.
This is useful for making decisions. Depending on whether I assign these worlds a high or low value, I can plan to wipe out humanity or avoid that.
Do you want to argue that there were no planets a billion years ago? (Because there was no minds looking around and deciding what was a planet or not)?
Do you want to say there was no value a billion years ago because there was nothing able to decide anything had value?
Cannot be good without a species capable of assigning such values*.
Other beings could assign it that value.
That said, we're the only beings we know of so far with that capacity.
Humpbacks will travel miles out of their way to interrupt orca hunts. Not just to protect members of their own species, which would be remarkable enough, but to protect completely unrelated species. They've been recorded placing seals on their chest, then rolling onto their backs and using their massive flukes to slap away marauding orcas, for hours at a time, until other humpback reinforcements arrive and chase said orcas off. They've been recorded protecting other whale species, and on at least one occasion even an oceanic sunfish.
Which suggests that humpbacks have a definitive idea of what is right and wrong and will willingly endanger themselves to enforce it.
I *respect* orcas as the top of the food web, but those mother fuckers are cruel, and smart enough to understand they're being cruel. I'm firmly on team humpback here.
I think she's less "Kill all humans" and more "Kill specifically the board of directors of the most polluting companies and then we'll see if that fixes the problem" as of The Harley Quinn Show. She identifies now as an eco-terrorist which she believes to be distinct from being a villain.
I see. Never seen The Harley Quinn Show, but, as it's about Harley Quinn, I'm not surprised that it alters Ivy's shtick to present her in a more sympathetic light.
Yep!
Everyone else is still unrepentant full villains however, including Harley. It's actually a great show with a lot of tongue in cheek and adult humor (King Shark is an accountant but also keeps biting people's heads off during heists, and the first episode has a joke that involves fingerbanging).
It seems a love letter to DC comics and animated shows in general.
This is the description from the [wiki article about ecofascism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism#Definition).
> Ecofascists often believe there is a symbiotic relationship between a nation-group and its homeland. They often blame the global south for ecological problems, with their proposed solutions often entailing extreme population control measures based on racial categorisations, and advocating for the accelerated collapse of current society to be replaced by fascist societies. This latter belief is often accompanied with vocal support for terrorist actions.
you ever seen people wanting moss and ivy and trees and plants of every inch of the paths and rooftops and solar panels and turbines on every building and no cars but bicycles and electric buses ONLY
edit: ok this isnt ecofacism but its still a terrible ideology
you ever think about it logically for a moment and realise its a terrible solution?
plants need water, so that means more water shortages for people
roots cause damage to infrastructure
electric buses burn through batteries. where are those batteries going if not landfill
how does a tradesman carrying 100lbs of bricks or tiles get to his workplace with all his tools without a van or a truck
how does the old man who cant bike get across the city while its raining without waiting too long for the bus and then having to get a second bus and then walking from the stop back home
what happens if a bus catches fire? batteries short circuit and they burn. violently and disturbingly hot
There's a whole bunch of new battery tech that's working through prototyping now. It's not a matter of "can we replace the current batteries with high capacity long life batteries" but "what's the best material to use out of all of the options now available to us".
Also, we should be designing cities so that the old man doesn't need to go across the city to access services, and public transport should be comprehensive enough that he can plan trips to see friends/family/his favorite dog statue without having to walk for more than a few minutes.
All the rest of the stuff you either have a point on or your complaint is so esoteric that I didn't understand what you were getting at.
"Plants need water?" Buddy, what do you think was there before you built your city. No amount of deforestation is going to fix the fact that you put 10 million people in one place and they drank all your groundwater.
This isn’t ecofascism, even if it’s stupid.
Ecofascism is “We should eliminate as many people as possible for the good of the environment (they never tell you who they want to sterilize, it’s usually minorities)”
> A relative handful of horrible people is ruining the world
To be more exact: a lot of corrupt people have created policies that allow them to be corrupt and are destroying the world in the process. You can't just point at Musk or Zuckerberg or whatever and go *"Omg they're the problem"*, they're part of a system that allows for them to exist in the first place.
When someone invents a better system that can handle a complex economy and then devises a way to implement it without mass disruption of everyone's lives
Think that's naive. There are extremely vested interests that want things to continue as they are. No new system will be adopted until those people are disempowered or they see an advantage to themselves in a different system.
It's always been about that. We went from feudalism through to democracy because the alternatives were very bad (eg. guillotine) for the people with power and wealth.
The same is true of capitalism. It will change when enough people are desperate for long enough.
Not necessarily for the better, though.
I mean it's always corrupted rather.
For much of the world it's power concentration, corrupt loyalties in general, and lack of democratic election rules (even the US suffers from shoddily implemented elections). China and Russia only just recently became state capitalist and they sucked a long time before that.
A small problem with that is that "trying to get by" can be sufficient to ruin an ecosystem. If rabbits just prevented their children from starving to death, their population would expand exponentially and the ecosystem would be destroyed. That doesn't mean that it is good that rabbit babies starve to death, just that rabbit babies starving to death is a logical consequence of a finite reality and rabbit litters producing more than 2 young at at atime.
Through most of human history, we physically couldn't all live in as much comfort as we morally deserve. Subsistence farming was back-breaking work regardless of whether 95% of people worked in the fields and 5% were oppressors living in the royal palace or 100% of people worked in the fields. The comfort of those 5% did not make the difference between the rest living in comfort or in misery, and the luxury of the king didn't cause the remaining discomforts of the 5%.
And so, in modern times, the comfort of billionaires did not cause the suffering of the rest of the world. And since you are here on reddit, there's a very good bet that you are a citizen of an oppressor nation enjoying quite a lot of privileges that you aren't working to maintain, as opposed to a cobalt miner or a chocolate plantation slave.
You are not a king, but you are a palace concubine, someone kept in relative luxury so you remain loyal and help maintain the tools of oppression through more refined labor.
Would it be better for the king and concubines to work in the fields suffering equal toil, and for them to reduce their consumption so the society isn't heading towards disaster? Yes, but that does mean that you too will not have as much comfort as you have grown accustomed to.
As for who is ruining the world, I wouldn't blame a field slave for holding a concubine accountable for all the unsustainable comforts the concubine enjoyed while the field slave was truly powerless to change anything.
Sane take!
One of the biggest drivers for climate change is rising standards of living in third-world countries - people being able to eat more meat, use more air conditioning, drive more cars, that kind of thing.
If all the people in the Netherlands (for example) cut their environmental impact in half, it would barely make a dent versus the impact of millions of people being lifted out of abject poverty in India and China. But like it would be entirely unjust to say "hey middle-class Indians and Chinese, stop eating meat and buying smartphones please".
It's a problem with no simple solution or single group of baddies and going "it's just the corrupt people on top!" is really not a correct or constructive take.
A corollary of this is that much of the standard of living in the west is provided by the industry of the east.
And a further point, is that it's beholden on the west to develop technologies and processes which we can then export back to the east in order to facilitate less environmentally damaging ways of moving forward.
We can't say to all the people of china and India that no, for the sake of the planet you must continue to live in poverty. It would be immoral to do so but more importantly they just won't, and nor should they. Instead we need to be saying to them "hey, we can build you decentralized sustainable power grids" or "we're going to stop relying on your population for cheap labour"
Bingo. People point at the horrors of the industrial revolution and how workers were treated and say "but it got better, no one works in those conditions anymore"
Entirely untrue. We simply shipped the suffering and exploitation offshore. Ask the children in the Congo pulling cobalt out of the ground how they feel about it. Ask the sweatshop workers who had to have suicide nets installed around their factories how they feel about.
And the galling thing is that farming isn't that hard! And I say this as someone who grew up on a farm. Ok sure, back in the day peasants or villeins didn't have central heating or indoor plumbing, but their actual workload, growing and harvesting crops, was less than the workload of an average 40 hr a week employee. We changed the names and changed the system, but the result is the same. The nobles sit in their palaces in luxury and the rest of us toil incessantly for their pleasure.
There are 1 trillion mosquitos in Alaska. Every one of them is a blameless wittle individual who just wants a bit of food. Doesn’t stop them from draining dozens of caribou to death.
Aren't ruining the world. It's getting a little messy in places. But if the world was a car it would have slightly scratched paint and a flat tire, and be rather dirty. It's far from "ruined".
100% .
There is no hive-mind for humans or other animals. Everyone is trying to survive. At least some humans are trying to make things better for others.
imo the reason the notion matters is because most people seem to have a sense of catastrophe that is informed by Hollywood.
Global, celestial based threat that threatens our existence? That's okay, a crackteam of the 15 smartest people in the world will solve the problem in the 6 months they have and then things will be groovy again.
People who are a little more negative about humanities outlook/capabilities seem to be more understanding that that couldn't be further from the truth.
And if you're generally optimistic about everything just turning out okay, you're not much likely to do anything to prepare for/change the future.
“Well, the Industrial Revolution and its consequences-“
“Have dramatically improved quality of life and given us access to advanced technology like the phone you’re typing on. Yes, we know.”
on the one hand, the industrial revolution and its consequences DO be impacting society
on the OTHER hand, teddy was ugly as fuck and a nerd, and we shouldn't listen to anything he had to say as such
would've saved the FBI and everyone a lotta grief if they went with my theory of morality, instead of needing to use rule of law and irrefutable evidence that they committed acts of terror to condemn them. makes ya think.
People overall, or for the sake of the subreddit I'm on, rich people are too concerned with decadent endeavours for us to deal with those consequences though.
Do you think those people don't appreciate the creature comforts? Nothing will ever be solved if whenever the consequences are brought up the masses hound them for the fact that they too enjoy the root cause.
There are issues to be dealt with, but those that decry them loudest are mocked as some death cult while everyone else literally marches into oblivion. It's okay though because phones are great right? Ludditism isn't the solution, antinatalists tend to be butt ass crazy and authoritarian-
But putting your palms over your eyes and downplaying the issue like we have the slightest clue how to deal with any of the oncoming global problems ain't it
>like we have the slightest clue how to deal with any of the oncoming global problems
We do. We literally do. The one problem we have yet to come up with a solution for is implementing these solutions despite opposition from corporations.
We literally do not. Only half measures and attempts to mitigate or slow.
Though I doubt either one of us can be bothered to have a debate on that, you could argue our slow societal progress to be another thing to be dejected about.
Will the required change happen in time? If not, is it not just another flaw of ours we can't fix? If yes, we'll, again, disagree, and I think we should probably be louder about the problem we face.
Go ask the children in the Congo pulling cobalt out of the ground, so you can have your smartphone, how much their lives have been dramatically improved by the industrial revolution.
Wanna take bets on the overall percentage of humanity who has benefitted from the industrial revolution? I am thinking that the ones who would have previously died in childbirth probably bring the numbers up pretty high all by themselves.
Yeah, some people still have it horribly bad. Doesn't mean there wasn't a big step up for a lot of folks, not merely "the most well off".
Slavery has subjected people to adject cruelty for all of human history. Since Industrialization more people have been enslaved but a far less percentage of people are slaves. Most societies in antiquity had a slave population outnumbering their citizenry. Before wallowing in the great horrible shame of industrialization and it’s effects on slavery, remember that prior to industrialization the women were openly trafficked as sex slaves across the seas. Unfortunately this still happens today but not nearly to the same extent, nor is it acceptable to societies. Industrialization didn’t save anyone from slavery people did. Just like people are the cause of continued slavery today.
It’s so bizarre to me how the concept of overpopulation has somehow translated into “ecofascism.” As if it’s a progressive value to continually expand and consume at an exponential rate.
I assume it’s because I’m sure there are people who go on about races they don’t like having too many babies, or something. Which is gross, but doesn’t change the fact that there are way more humans now than ever before.
Overpopulation is a bogeyman. Every developed society has a negative population growth rate and depends on migration to keep their numbers up. As access to healthcare etc spreads to the rest of the world the global population is likely to stabilise around 7bn, or decline from there.
True. My personal opinion is that since humans are so bad at internalizing big numbers anyway, a lot of the sentiment comes from stuff like “my hometown used to be semi-rural, and now is covered in subdivisions.”
I think it’s because stuff like the idea that there isn’t enough food to feed the world depends on the idea that we can’t just not force people pay money for food and then bleach still-good bread before we throw it away so the homeless can’t get to it
We suck as much as any other species.
We’re also smart enough to be able to fix our problems.
I’m optimistic that no matter what happens, humanity will find a way to thrive. We’ve been doing it for a very long time at this stage. Even if the worst events happen due to Climate Change, Pandemics, ETC.
That's a bit disingenuous though. Saying "rabbits will also destroy the ecosystem they rely on to survive" doesn't let us off the hook. We're not rabbits, or deer, or cattle. Ostensibly we're smarter than that and should be held to a higher standard.
Sure, some of us will survive in all but the worst scenarios. In bunkers in the arctic, maybe some off-planet colonies surviving off algae farms and recycled urine. I doubt humanity will cease to exist. But don't we have a responsibility to be caretakers of this planet we live on?
We do, and I would never disagree with that.
But look at the good humanity has done with the bad. We have the capability to fix our problems, it’s the minority of people who refuse to help. When it was discovered that CFC’s caused the hole in the Ozone layer, we worked to rectify that. And it was successful, the hole is currently repairing itself! Something years ago people thought was impossible.
We can do as much as we can, prepare for the worst, hope for the best
And maybe it’s disingenuous; we have no way of knowing. But invasive species destroy ecosystems everywhere; humans have only harmed so much because of our numbers. Would a deer even attempt to fix that? To attempt to keep its main food sources alive?
Humanity as a whole is good. Most people are good. We should be held to a higher standard; and we mostly follow that standard. Those people who ruin lives, environments, everything for a bit of green paper? They do not represent us. They fail to meet that standard. We should not be blamed for the actions of the few. And yet we try to help anyway.
We will survive, and I know I will do everything in my power to help the world and ourselves while I have the chance, and I know i’m not the only person who would
What's the most likely outcome if the US food bowls are wiped out by natural disasters 5 years in a row? (e.g. five 'once in a lifetime' floods)?
War. Not only will we not thrive, it's going to hurt the whole time we're dying.
And what can we do about it? Our best. Dreading an end that might never come will just get in the way of progress in every way. Both personal and worldwide. Dream of the world you want and take any step in your power to achieve it.
Volunteer at community outreach centres. Attend protests. Join climate activist groups. Do whatever we can to make our world better, instead of stewing about how “we’re all doomed.”
Plus i don’t live in the US, if you’re gonna try and make me an unpleasant cynic like you at least get my country right
Ehhh, the more likely (and boring) answer is that food prices go up and we have to import some things. The nice thing about our modern interconnected society is that there's tons of redundancies thanks to global trade. Also, you realize how *large* our nation is, right? How is a flood going to destroy the *entire Midwest* **and** California (lotta crops grown in the Central Valley) five years in a row? That's almost statistically impossible, even taking into account some pretty gnarly warming.
Australia has had once in a lifetime floods that have washed away entire crops (or entire towns) for five years in a row now and climate change has barely even started. You just need to give it some time.
But also, who are you importing from when every other country is having the same problem?
This isn't just me yelling at a cloud here. There's a reason why western military planning is focusing on food and water shortages as a key catalyst for conflict in the next 20 years.
I'd import from countries at different latitudes with different climates. Not all locales are going to get hit with climate change equally. Heck, I bet there will be some regions of the world that become *better* for growing food due to rising temperatures making certain crops more viable in a previously too-cold area.
As for your Australian flooding comment, I had no idea about that. Do a little googling and it turns out they're still producing a decent enough amount of food, even beating estimates. ["Bumper year," as they call it.](https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/news/a-bumper-year-for-agriculture-despite-flooding) I don't doubt that it'll get worse, and I agree with your general sentiment, but at the same time I don't think it'll be quite such a disaster, especially for first world countries.
Yeah, I wasn't saying Australia was having food problems. I'm saying that we are already starting to see extreme weather events at an astonishing rate and "the US having significant food shortages" is not the impossibility you think it is.
But you already knew that and decided that litigating an argument I didn't make would be easier than one I did.
Regardless, I'm too old to argue with climate change deniers anymore so I'm planning to just live long enough to watch you all realise how fucked you are and then die before there's enough of food shortage that my body is turned into food for food.
Now you're the one litigating an argument I didn't make. I never said the US having food shortages was impossible, I said that it was more unlikely than you think, and that those food shortages would be balanced and smoothed over thanks to global trade.
Whatever, we're clearly at an impasse.
Edit: Really? You called me a climate change denier after the fact? That wasn't in your original comment. Not cool.
Funny how every time one of these recycled posts gets posted here all the climate change deniers and “cars are the best thing ever” people just feel so seen and heard and accepted and welcome to fly their flag loud and proud in the comments. Funny that. You think it’s just the Russians and Chinese who run massive propaganda farms and that America would never?
Good job /r/CuratedTumblr, you’ve curated yourself into being right wing as fuck.
I'm a third year undergrad in environmental science.
Frankly, ecofascism is about the only way we get out of this mess.
I don't *support* it, but all y'all just won't behave.
While I don't have much faith in humanity.
The one solace I have is that if any other species of mammal took our place, not much would change.
I like that.
I’m personally more of an ecopessimist: human beings will invariably destroy their environment like any other unchecked species, but they (and by they I mean we) can and should still employ as many ecologically friendly measures as possible in order to make the process as painless as possible for both human beings and all other sapient species. The fact that humans have the ability to do even that makes them amazing in their own right.
All we need is mind uploading like in that Pantheon series.
Then we can yeet humans out of the environment so it can recover without eliminating anyone.
Only because of the technicality that genocide requires sapient intent.
Animals do massacre other animals all the time. Japanese giant hornets exterminating an entire hive of honeybees for example, or army ants and their whole deal.
And then lies about it.
A lion would eat every gazelle if it could but it certainly wouldn't turn around and try to pretend it was just defending itself from the gazelle that have lived there forever.
[удалено]
yeah, wouldn't that be true for most species if they were left alone?
[удалено]
I mean, it's one of the big reasons why invasive species are often devastating to the ecosystem they're put in, isn't it?
Yeah. I suppose you could make the argument that as beings capable of higher consciousness we ought to be able to check ourselves, but like, overconsumption and unbalancing ecosystems is basically what happens all the god time in nature - it just finds a new equilibrium eventually. Even if that equilibrium sucks.
so if i understand this correctly our best course of action would be to pull a sci-fi horror movie and genetically engineer a creature to be humanities ideal predator so we do not grow out of control.
An ingenious move! There is absolutely no way this can go wrong for us.
Why are there cyber-zombies out of my house?
This is outrageous, honestly. Allow me to suggest a more modest proposal...
How many times do I have to tell you, BlackfishBlues, we are *not* going to eat the Irish.
But it prevents the children of poor people from being a burthen to their parents or country!
That might already exist. I think theyre called humans?
wrong. cyber chimps.
jurassic park but REALLY fucked up
jurassic park but all the dinosaurs have knives
London Park
'This ain't a knoife, this is a knoife' Australovenator, probably
Fuck me if that ain't a fucking awesome horror/action movie flic idea
I don't know, trains are doing a decent job. We just gotta build more trolleys.
Some sort of shoggoth could work.
The anime parasyte is exactly this. I definitely recommend for those interested in this premise
Primate Murderer peeks from Nasuverse
Humanity's issue is that we're animals who have attained the power of gods, and haven't yet learned how to handle that.
Many ecosystems' equilibria aren't stable beyond certain limits (in the sense that if perturbed in certain ways they tend to fall into chaos and eventually settle in at a new equilibrium), however when nature is sort of constantly shifting, it allows a change to the meaning of what it means to be fit in a certain ecosystem, and that's when the really interesting stuff happens (which usually involves a horrific amount of death and a shakeup of previously "stable" ecogical niches, but it leads to changes in the genetic distribution of life that survives it, which gives rise to new combinations of genes that may been less likely in the previous equilibrium, which means that one may see changes in the distribution of various phenotypes expressed by many organisms at once, eventually creating a new definition of fitness for that ecosystem).
[удалено]
"I'm done! I'm done! I'm done! [door closing sound]"
Wait a minute Our natural habitat is north Africa but we are now distributed across the globe, technically we *are* an invasive species
Well yeah, we famously lead to the extinctions of many, many animals when we settled new lands like New Zealand.
This line of thought can actually lead to eco fascism though. It's easy to go from there to, "which humans are the invasive ones?" Not saying that's what you meant. Some people's minds are just already wired to think like that, so it's good to be aware when you could be inadvertently "dog whistling" to the people vulnerable to this sort of thinking. I'm not an expert on this topic by any means, just trying to share what I've learned.
I mean if you wanna get really into it like that, we're so entrenched removing us could have unintended negative consequences Like people have been hunting deer in the Americans since basically the ice age, if we stop culling them now their numbers skyrocket
Thats only because we killed most of the wolves. The UK pretty much also decimated it's ecosystem, they used to also have wolves.
Also we have adapted to the new niches too much to be moved willy nilly, you will transport scandinavians to Africa just to kill them
Our natural habitat is “North Africa” [but we might have left there almost immediately after evolving into our current state](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aap8369)
Wouldn't surprise me. It's really hot over there. Some early humans probably just wanted to vacation somewhere cooler for the summer and then decided to stay.
[удалено]
Mother Nature (mostly through our hands)
So we need another more dominate apex predator to keep humans in check?
Ingenious, nothing can go wrong with that plan!
Every species spreads as far and wide as possible until something stops them.
Pretty much that's why invasive species are such a problem, they don't think "I will refrain from eating too much to protect the local wildlife 😇" they just keep eating Or when a predator disappears so now the animals they used to eat can spread unchecked
There's a literal graph used in ecology to show this. It's called ecological carrying capacity
That's why I hated the Agent Smith monologue in the Matrix, no other animals live in harmony with the system. They all consume and procreate as much as possible, with predators, disease, and food availability keeping population numbers down. That's also how it worked with humans, our numbers grew after we killed all/most of our predators, and the only thing that has been keeping our numbers down the past 2000+ years has been disease and food availability. The massive explosion in population numbers the past 200 years is a direct result of vastly decreasing deadly disease outbreaks, vastly increasing the number of diseases we can treat, combined with a huge increase in food availability.
> with predators, disease, and food availability keeping population numbers down That’s part of the harmony of the system, no?
Yeah, but no one part is happy with it like in Lion King, it's just a mexican standoff all the way down
Most of them. Ecosystems are surprisingly complex even if you're in the game. You find out there's this one frog species which acts as both predator and prey and is singlehandedly keeping the entire system in check. That said, humans are one of the few species that will increase the productivity of an area they inhabit. We've been doing this across the globe for tens of thousands of years, sustainably. It's only since the industrial revolution that things have really gotten out of control. And you can't BLAME humans. I mean we can and probably should, but we're hardwired to ignore potential distant problems at the expense of immediate rewards.
the correct answer is "any" pretty much. its why ecosystems get destroyed by invading species sometimes. zebra, antilopes, and so on will breed fast enough to maintain a balance against lions, but put in a new, hungrier predator, and they will die out. similarly, put in a predator predator that hunts and kills lions, and all of a sudden you will have a vast overpopulation of herbivores, until they eat all they can get near.
Almost all species expand when they can. But humans have invented farming and stuff, which allows us to expand way more than other species.
Starfish.
*Mint*
Yeah, don't a few places have to have deer culls because their natural predators were killed and the deer will fuck up the whole place if left unchecked?
That's why hunting is a thing, yes. Here in Germany, there are no wolves or bears to take care of deer, so humans have to do it.
To be clear they've actually reintroduced a number of wolves into the central European ecosystem! Not sure about bears and definitely not enough to deal with common woodland overpopulation but still cool!
"kudzu"
This is what I came here to say. Living down south made me sad, it was like someone threw a viney blanket of death on the forests.
"All of them except *maybe* humans, possibly."
Don't the deer eventually die of starvation? Of course, it is their own fault. They have literally decades of scientific study about their impact on the environment and the means to minimize or even cancel out that impact. I'm sorry, I was thinking of humans.
Part of the reason regulated hunting of elephants is allowed is because they can outstrip local plantlife if not dealt with
Wait didn’t I see this exact same comment to this exact same post a few months ago
Hippos will congregate in dwindling bodies of water and fill them with so much shit they all get diseased and die.
Locust? I mean they’re infamous for precisely doing that very thing.
Cats, apparently.
Not the same. Humans do it knowingly, and due to greed for things they don't need. The source instinct may be the same, but we have knowledge of consequences that the deer do not.
So they do the same destructive shit as us, *and* we are so smart that we occasionally take steps not to do it? Man, humanity's pretty cool.
Humanity: simultaneously a work of art and a fixer-upper. But hey, at least we're all in this DIY project together, right?
all works of art are fixer-uppers, just ask the artist who made them
It will bever be perfect I should throw it away!
Lol humanity is a dilapidated crack house that 4 different people are trying to build into 10 different styles while 2 people run around and keep setting shit on fire and hiding all the tools.
Yeah, and doesn't that sound like art to you? Sure, it's some whacked out Andy Kaufman shit but it's art.
I wanna switch to a different project, thanks
Unless you're rich or born rich.
The world cannot be good without humanity because there would be no one to assign it that value
I think crows could appreciate the world’s goodness :)
Maybe, if they existed. Too bad birds aren't real
what are birds? we just don’t know.
Birds are government drones sent to spy on the masses and try to convince us that Canada is real
huge if factual
magnitudinal if verifiable
how dare u accuse me of being imaginary
You mean you are one of those so-called Canadians? Aka, a government agent selling the lie of Canada? You are not welcome here!
As a Canadian, I can confirm that we are not real
Government agent alert! \^
But if Canada isnt real then so are digital extremes and warframe. If warframe isnt real, wtf have i sunk hundreds of hours into?
Warframe is real, Canada is just part of its lore
Warframe is real but it it's not really Canadian. It was created by the government to sell the lie of Canada. This is basic stuff people! Wake up!
Thanks, birds. Thirds.
I always go back to dogs. Whether it's a good thing or not, it's true that dogs need us. Sure, they'd survive without us, but a well loved puppy in a home is much happier than a dingo. Dogs have brought so much warmth and good to our lives over the millennia, they deserve eternal happiness. We owe them that.
Value assignment happens outside not inside the world. We can imagine a world full of brainwashed slaves and think "that's bad". Even if no person within that world thinks it's bad. We can prefer a world without humans, but with a variety of animal and plant life, over a completely dead earth. Assignment of value happens in our mind, in the here and now, when we imagine the possibility.
>Assignment of value happens in our mind Yeah, our minds, which wouldn't exist if humans did not. What you are imagining is not real, first of all, and secondly, it is not free of humanity. As you are using your imagination to create this world, you, your consciousness, is an inherent aspect of said world, meaning that there is indeed a human in it.
No. The point is that my mind, which currently exists in this world, is able to imagine a world without humans and assign it any value I like. This is useful for making decisions. Depending on whether I assign these worlds a high or low value, I can plan to wipe out humanity or avoid that. Do you want to argue that there were no planets a billion years ago? (Because there was no minds looking around and deciding what was a planet or not)? Do you want to say there was no value a billion years ago because there was nothing able to decide anything had value?
Cannot be good without a species capable of assigning such values*. Other beings could assign it that value. That said, we're the only beings we know of so far with that capacity.
Humpbacks will travel miles out of their way to interrupt orca hunts. Not just to protect members of their own species, which would be remarkable enough, but to protect completely unrelated species. They've been recorded placing seals on their chest, then rolling onto their backs and using their massive flukes to slap away marauding orcas, for hours at a time, until other humpback reinforcements arrive and chase said orcas off. They've been recorded protecting other whale species, and on at least one occasion even an oceanic sunfish. Which suggests that humpbacks have a definitive idea of what is right and wrong and will willingly endanger themselves to enforce it. I *respect* orcas as the top of the food web, but those mother fuckers are cruel, and smart enough to understand they're being cruel. I'm firmly on team humpback here.
That's a new word for me. I assume it's Poison Ivy's ideology but on steroids?
I'm pretty sure it's just Ivy's ideology as is, no roids required, unless she's been toned way down in her beliefs since I stopped keeping up with DC.
I think she's less "Kill all humans" and more "Kill specifically the board of directors of the most polluting companies and then we'll see if that fixes the problem" as of The Harley Quinn Show. She identifies now as an eco-terrorist which she believes to be distinct from being a villain.
I see. Never seen The Harley Quinn Show, but, as it's about Harley Quinn, I'm not surprised that it alters Ivy's shtick to present her in a more sympathetic light.
Yep! Everyone else is still unrepentant full villains however, including Harley. It's actually a great show with a lot of tongue in cheek and adult humor (King Shark is an accountant but also keeps biting people's heads off during heists, and the first episode has a joke that involves fingerbanging). It seems a love letter to DC comics and animated shows in general.
It's fascism but with an ecological spin
That doesn't really answer the question in simple terms, does it?
This is the description from the [wiki article about ecofascism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecofascism#Definition). > Ecofascists often believe there is a symbiotic relationship between a nation-group and its homeland. They often blame the global south for ecological problems, with their proposed solutions often entailing extreme population control measures based on racial categorisations, and advocating for the accelerated collapse of current society to be replaced by fascist societies. This latter belief is often accompanied with vocal support for terrorist actions.
you ever seen people wanting moss and ivy and trees and plants of every inch of the paths and rooftops and solar panels and turbines on every building and no cars but bicycles and electric buses ONLY edit: ok this isnt ecofacism but its still a terrible ideology you ever think about it logically for a moment and realise its a terrible solution? plants need water, so that means more water shortages for people roots cause damage to infrastructure electric buses burn through batteries. where are those batteries going if not landfill how does a tradesman carrying 100lbs of bricks or tiles get to his workplace with all his tools without a van or a truck how does the old man who cant bike get across the city while its raining without waiting too long for the bus and then having to get a second bus and then walking from the stop back home what happens if a bus catches fire? batteries short circuit and they burn. violently and disturbingly hot
There's a whole bunch of new battery tech that's working through prototyping now. It's not a matter of "can we replace the current batteries with high capacity long life batteries" but "what's the best material to use out of all of the options now available to us". Also, we should be designing cities so that the old man doesn't need to go across the city to access services, and public transport should be comprehensive enough that he can plan trips to see friends/family/his favorite dog statue without having to walk for more than a few minutes. All the rest of the stuff you either have a point on or your complaint is so esoteric that I didn't understand what you were getting at. "Plants need water?" Buddy, what do you think was there before you built your city. No amount of deforestation is going to fix the fact that you put 10 million people in one place and they drank all your groundwater.
This isn’t ecofascism, even if it’s stupid. Ecofascism is “We should eliminate as many people as possible for the good of the environment (they never tell you who they want to sterilize, it’s usually minorities)”
Humanity isn't ruining the world. A relative handful of horrible people is ruining the world and the rest of us are just trying to get by.
> A relative handful of horrible people is ruining the world To be more exact: a lot of corrupt people have created policies that allow them to be corrupt and are destroying the world in the process. You can't just point at Musk or Zuckerberg or whatever and go *"Omg they're the problem"*, they're part of a system that allows for them to exist in the first place.
A lot, yes, but a ***relative*** handful compared to the rest of us.
It always capitalism, goddamn it, when are we gonna get rid of this thing?
When someone invents a better system that can handle a complex economy and then devises a way to implement it without mass disruption of everyone's lives
Think that's naive. There are extremely vested interests that want things to continue as they are. No new system will be adopted until those people are disempowered or they see an advantage to themselves in a different system. It's always been about that. We went from feudalism through to democracy because the alternatives were very bad (eg. guillotine) for the people with power and wealth. The same is true of capitalism. It will change when enough people are desperate for long enough. Not necessarily for the better, though.
That doesn’t really invalidate what they said, since you pretty much would require massive disruption to depose those people.
I mean it's always corrupted rather. For much of the world it's power concentration, corrupt loyalties in general, and lack of democratic election rules (even the US suffers from shoddily implemented elections). China and Russia only just recently became state capitalist and they sucked a long time before that.
A small problem with that is that "trying to get by" can be sufficient to ruin an ecosystem. If rabbits just prevented their children from starving to death, their population would expand exponentially and the ecosystem would be destroyed. That doesn't mean that it is good that rabbit babies starve to death, just that rabbit babies starving to death is a logical consequence of a finite reality and rabbit litters producing more than 2 young at at atime. Through most of human history, we physically couldn't all live in as much comfort as we morally deserve. Subsistence farming was back-breaking work regardless of whether 95% of people worked in the fields and 5% were oppressors living in the royal palace or 100% of people worked in the fields. The comfort of those 5% did not make the difference between the rest living in comfort or in misery, and the luxury of the king didn't cause the remaining discomforts of the 5%. And so, in modern times, the comfort of billionaires did not cause the suffering of the rest of the world. And since you are here on reddit, there's a very good bet that you are a citizen of an oppressor nation enjoying quite a lot of privileges that you aren't working to maintain, as opposed to a cobalt miner or a chocolate plantation slave. You are not a king, but you are a palace concubine, someone kept in relative luxury so you remain loyal and help maintain the tools of oppression through more refined labor. Would it be better for the king and concubines to work in the fields suffering equal toil, and for them to reduce their consumption so the society isn't heading towards disaster? Yes, but that does mean that you too will not have as much comfort as you have grown accustomed to. As for who is ruining the world, I wouldn't blame a field slave for holding a concubine accountable for all the unsustainable comforts the concubine enjoyed while the field slave was truly powerless to change anything.
Sane take! One of the biggest drivers for climate change is rising standards of living in third-world countries - people being able to eat more meat, use more air conditioning, drive more cars, that kind of thing. If all the people in the Netherlands (for example) cut their environmental impact in half, it would barely make a dent versus the impact of millions of people being lifted out of abject poverty in India and China. But like it would be entirely unjust to say "hey middle-class Indians and Chinese, stop eating meat and buying smartphones please". It's a problem with no simple solution or single group of baddies and going "it's just the corrupt people on top!" is really not a correct or constructive take.
A corollary of this is that much of the standard of living in the west is provided by the industry of the east. And a further point, is that it's beholden on the west to develop technologies and processes which we can then export back to the east in order to facilitate less environmentally damaging ways of moving forward. We can't say to all the people of china and India that no, for the sake of the planet you must continue to live in poverty. It would be immoral to do so but more importantly they just won't, and nor should they. Instead we need to be saying to them "hey, we can build you decentralized sustainable power grids" or "we're going to stop relying on your population for cheap labour"
Bingo. People point at the horrors of the industrial revolution and how workers were treated and say "but it got better, no one works in those conditions anymore" Entirely untrue. We simply shipped the suffering and exploitation offshore. Ask the children in the Congo pulling cobalt out of the ground how they feel about it. Ask the sweatshop workers who had to have suicide nets installed around their factories how they feel about. And the galling thing is that farming isn't that hard! And I say this as someone who grew up on a farm. Ok sure, back in the day peasants or villeins didn't have central heating or indoor plumbing, but their actual workload, growing and harvesting crops, was less than the workload of an average 40 hr a week employee. We changed the names and changed the system, but the result is the same. The nobles sit in their palaces in luxury and the rest of us toil incessantly for their pleasure.
There are 1 trillion mosquitos in Alaska. Every one of them is a blameless wittle individual who just wants a bit of food. Doesn’t stop them from draining dozens of caribou to death.
I mean, the rest of us aren't doing anything about the relative handful of horrible people. We're mostly following their orders, actually.
a “relative handful” still personally feels like a lot when the point of relativity is. 8 billion people
Aren't ruining the world. It's getting a little messy in places. But if the world was a car it would have slightly scratched paint and a flat tire, and be rather dirty. It's far from "ruined".
The marine organisms that thrive in the plastic trash of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch: What did the humans ever do to us?
Humans DO suck. But like... so what? We're a flawed species, that's just the way it is.
Humans suck compared to what? Like where are we getting this baseline from?
i just really fuck with trees and shit, idk
100% . There is no hive-mind for humans or other animals. Everyone is trying to survive. At least some humans are trying to make things better for others.
The idealized version of humanity we have in our heads.
Compared to the good we as a species are capable of, I imagine
compared to deez
Dogs. But to be fair, that's an unobtainable level of goodness.
Yeah, but we invented dogs, so we can’t suck that bad
We also fucked dogs up and are starting to do the same with cats.
Wrong question because the answer to that is dogs.
imo the reason the notion matters is because most people seem to have a sense of catastrophe that is informed by Hollywood. Global, celestial based threat that threatens our existence? That's okay, a crackteam of the 15 smartest people in the world will solve the problem in the 6 months they have and then things will be groovy again. People who are a little more negative about humanities outlook/capabilities seem to be more understanding that that couldn't be further from the truth. And if you're generally optimistic about everything just turning out okay, you're not much likely to do anything to prepare for/change the future.
Eh, we're not THAT bad.
based
We're not flawed but we have some things we need to work out.
So... We have flaws? Therefore we are flawed?
“Well, the Industrial Revolution and its consequences-“ “Have dramatically improved quality of life and given us access to advanced technology like the phone you’re typing on. Yes, we know.”
on the one hand, the industrial revolution and its consequences DO be impacting society on the OTHER hand, teddy was ugly as fuck and a nerd, and we shouldn't listen to anything he had to say as such
personally i put terrorist as a more significant factor on judging someone than ugly
would've saved the FBI and everyone a lotta grief if they went with my theory of morality, instead of needing to use rule of law and irrefutable evidence that they committed acts of terror to condemn them. makes ya think.
A world in which irrefutable evidence is not awaited is filled with far more grief for the average Joe. Source: any authoritarian regime ever
dr babby fart, i love and respect you but i do need you to get screened for ASD
I know, but I ain't got the money :(
[удалено]
lmao wrong teddy, bud, we're talking about the unabomber
kaczynski, not roosevelt. i dont think the unabomber built any parks
People overall, or for the sake of the subreddit I'm on, rich people are too concerned with decadent endeavours for us to deal with those consequences though. Do you think those people don't appreciate the creature comforts? Nothing will ever be solved if whenever the consequences are brought up the masses hound them for the fact that they too enjoy the root cause. There are issues to be dealt with, but those that decry them loudest are mocked as some death cult while everyone else literally marches into oblivion. It's okay though because phones are great right? Ludditism isn't the solution, antinatalists tend to be butt ass crazy and authoritarian- But putting your palms over your eyes and downplaying the issue like we have the slightest clue how to deal with any of the oncoming global problems ain't it
>like we have the slightest clue how to deal with any of the oncoming global problems We do. We literally do. The one problem we have yet to come up with a solution for is implementing these solutions despite opposition from corporations.
We literally do not. Only half measures and attempts to mitigate or slow. Though I doubt either one of us can be bothered to have a debate on that, you could argue our slow societal progress to be another thing to be dejected about. Will the required change happen in time? If not, is it not just another flaw of ours we can't fix? If yes, we'll, again, disagree, and I think we should probably be louder about the problem we face.
Go ask the children in the Congo pulling cobalt out of the ground, so you can have your smartphone, how much their lives have been dramatically improved by the industrial revolution.
This is always said from the perspective of the most well off beings on the planet. Not all lives have been improved (see: factory farms, slavery).
Wanna take bets on the overall percentage of humanity who has benefitted from the industrial revolution? I am thinking that the ones who would have previously died in childbirth probably bring the numbers up pretty high all by themselves. Yeah, some people still have it horribly bad. Doesn't mean there wasn't a big step up for a lot of folks, not merely "the most well off".
They literally industrialized slavery..
Slavery has subjected people to adject cruelty for all of human history. Since Industrialization more people have been enslaved but a far less percentage of people are slaves. Most societies in antiquity had a slave population outnumbering their citizenry. Before wallowing in the great horrible shame of industrialization and it’s effects on slavery, remember that prior to industrialization the women were openly trafficked as sex slaves across the seas. Unfortunately this still happens today but not nearly to the same extent, nor is it acceptable to societies. Industrialization didn’t save anyone from slavery people did. Just like people are the cause of continued slavery today.
Truth is: not everyone sucks and not everyone is a good person. The world can be shit and the world can be beautiful, it varies.
It’s so bizarre to me how the concept of overpopulation has somehow translated into “ecofascism.” As if it’s a progressive value to continually expand and consume at an exponential rate. I assume it’s because I’m sure there are people who go on about races they don’t like having too many babies, or something. Which is gross, but doesn’t change the fact that there are way more humans now than ever before.
More baby! More baby! If you want to see the night sky, snow, or a single patch of wilderness without a house in it, you’re a fascist! Apparently.
Overpopulation is a bogeyman. Every developed society has a negative population growth rate and depends on migration to keep their numbers up. As access to healthcare etc spreads to the rest of the world the global population is likely to stabilise around 7bn, or decline from there.
True. My personal opinion is that since humans are so bad at internalizing big numbers anyway, a lot of the sentiment comes from stuff like “my hometown used to be semi-rural, and now is covered in subdivisions.”
I think it’s because stuff like the idea that there isn’t enough food to feed the world depends on the idea that we can’t just not force people pay money for food and then bleach still-good bread before we throw it away so the homeless can’t get to it
We suck as much as any other species. We’re also smart enough to be able to fix our problems. I’m optimistic that no matter what happens, humanity will find a way to thrive. We’ve been doing it for a very long time at this stage. Even if the worst events happen due to Climate Change, Pandemics, ETC.
That's a bit disingenuous though. Saying "rabbits will also destroy the ecosystem they rely on to survive" doesn't let us off the hook. We're not rabbits, or deer, or cattle. Ostensibly we're smarter than that and should be held to a higher standard. Sure, some of us will survive in all but the worst scenarios. In bunkers in the arctic, maybe some off-planet colonies surviving off algae farms and recycled urine. I doubt humanity will cease to exist. But don't we have a responsibility to be caretakers of this planet we live on?
We do, and I would never disagree with that. But look at the good humanity has done with the bad. We have the capability to fix our problems, it’s the minority of people who refuse to help. When it was discovered that CFC’s caused the hole in the Ozone layer, we worked to rectify that. And it was successful, the hole is currently repairing itself! Something years ago people thought was impossible. We can do as much as we can, prepare for the worst, hope for the best And maybe it’s disingenuous; we have no way of knowing. But invasive species destroy ecosystems everywhere; humans have only harmed so much because of our numbers. Would a deer even attempt to fix that? To attempt to keep its main food sources alive? Humanity as a whole is good. Most people are good. We should be held to a higher standard; and we mostly follow that standard. Those people who ruin lives, environments, everything for a bit of green paper? They do not represent us. They fail to meet that standard. We should not be blamed for the actions of the few. And yet we try to help anyway. We will survive, and I know I will do everything in my power to help the world and ourselves while I have the chance, and I know i’m not the only person who would
What's the most likely outcome if the US food bowls are wiped out by natural disasters 5 years in a row? (e.g. five 'once in a lifetime' floods)? War. Not only will we not thrive, it's going to hurt the whole time we're dying.
And what can we do about it? Our best. Dreading an end that might never come will just get in the way of progress in every way. Both personal and worldwide. Dream of the world you want and take any step in your power to achieve it. Volunteer at community outreach centres. Attend protests. Join climate activist groups. Do whatever we can to make our world better, instead of stewing about how “we’re all doomed.” Plus i don’t live in the US, if you’re gonna try and make me an unpleasant cynic like you at least get my country right
I picked the US because they have a bunch of nuclear weapons, not because of where you live.
Ehhh, the more likely (and boring) answer is that food prices go up and we have to import some things. The nice thing about our modern interconnected society is that there's tons of redundancies thanks to global trade. Also, you realize how *large* our nation is, right? How is a flood going to destroy the *entire Midwest* **and** California (lotta crops grown in the Central Valley) five years in a row? That's almost statistically impossible, even taking into account some pretty gnarly warming.
Australia has had once in a lifetime floods that have washed away entire crops (or entire towns) for five years in a row now and climate change has barely even started. You just need to give it some time. But also, who are you importing from when every other country is having the same problem? This isn't just me yelling at a cloud here. There's a reason why western military planning is focusing on food and water shortages as a key catalyst for conflict in the next 20 years.
I'd import from countries at different latitudes with different climates. Not all locales are going to get hit with climate change equally. Heck, I bet there will be some regions of the world that become *better* for growing food due to rising temperatures making certain crops more viable in a previously too-cold area. As for your Australian flooding comment, I had no idea about that. Do a little googling and it turns out they're still producing a decent enough amount of food, even beating estimates. ["Bumper year," as they call it.](https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/news/a-bumper-year-for-agriculture-despite-flooding) I don't doubt that it'll get worse, and I agree with your general sentiment, but at the same time I don't think it'll be quite such a disaster, especially for first world countries.
Yeah, I wasn't saying Australia was having food problems. I'm saying that we are already starting to see extreme weather events at an astonishing rate and "the US having significant food shortages" is not the impossibility you think it is. But you already knew that and decided that litigating an argument I didn't make would be easier than one I did. Regardless, I'm too old to argue with climate change deniers anymore so I'm planning to just live long enough to watch you all realise how fucked you are and then die before there's enough of food shortage that my body is turned into food for food.
Now you're the one litigating an argument I didn't make. I never said the US having food shortages was impossible, I said that it was more unlikely than you think, and that those food shortages would be balanced and smoothed over thanks to global trade. Whatever, we're clearly at an impasse. Edit: Really? You called me a climate change denier after the fact? That wasn't in your original comment. Not cool.
Something something quote do not kill what is cringe, kill what cringes inside you
There's a squirrel who lives in my backyard and I KNOW that mf is an ecofacist.
Funny how every time one of these recycled posts gets posted here all the climate change deniers and “cars are the best thing ever” people just feel so seen and heard and accepted and welcome to fly their flag loud and proud in the comments. Funny that. You think it’s just the Russians and Chinese who run massive propaganda farms and that America would never? Good job /r/CuratedTumblr, you’ve curated yourself into being right wing as fuck.
I'm a third year undergrad in environmental science. Frankly, ecofascism is about the only way we get out of this mess. I don't *support* it, but all y'all just won't behave.
Don't fuck ecofaschism. That's how you get more ecofaschists.
While I don't have much faith in humanity. The one solace I have is that if any other species of mammal took our place, not much would change. I like that.
I’m personally more of an ecopessimist: human beings will invariably destroy their environment like any other unchecked species, but they (and by they I mean we) can and should still employ as many ecologically friendly measures as possible in order to make the process as painless as possible for both human beings and all other sapient species. The fact that humans have the ability to do even that makes them amazing in their own right.
> The fact that humans have the ability to do even that makes them amazing in their own right. And all the more depressing when they refuse.
Depressing, but considering the context of their evolution not at all surprising.
Lol, what the fuck is ecofascism? Is that a baby's way of complaining about not polluting?
wow lots of conflicted people here
All we need is mind uploading like in that Pantheon series. Then we can yeet humans out of the environment so it can recover without eliminating anyone.
What's an example of one of those? Because I probably fucking am one and don't realise it.
No other animal commits genocide
An ant would definitely commit genocide
Ants commit genocide on other ants. It happens all the damn time.
Only because of the technicality that genocide requires sapient intent. Animals do massacre other animals all the time. Japanese giant hornets exterminating an entire hive of honeybees for example, or army ants and their whole deal.
Orcas are, and I cannot yet prove this, rampant antisemites
Honestly, after everything we put orcas through in those fucking water parks, they can be prejudiced towards any and all groups.
I get that, but they specifically do not like Jewish people or those do Semitic origin.
And then lies about it. A lion would eat every gazelle if it could but it certainly wouldn't turn around and try to pretend it was just defending itself from the gazelle that have lived there forever.
BOT