It's wild how humans would destroy the planet to the point of extinction
And would rather create a terra colony on mars and attempt to sustain life on mars before considering taking better care of the planet
26-30, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
Humans will not be powerful enough to destroy the planet for several millennia going by our historical rate of progress... we need to come out of this fallacy that we are "destroying the planet".... that's extremely hubristic and reeks of false pride.
We are just altering the conditions of the planet that we are used to... or more accurately, speeding up the natural rate of a change that is inevitable with or without us.
In order to pursue our lives as we know it, there is no other way but to alter the conditions.... the choice is to either completely abandon our current way of life overnight to stop these changes, or to plan in advance for the challenges that we will need to face by continuing to live as we do.
Both paths are equally difficult and neither is a winning path... as Thomas Sowell says... there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
It is not within human power, at least at this moment, to cause all life to end on this planet. If all existing nuclear weapons were detonated at once, life would still survive on earth. Let's mot make this a moral issue but a practical one.
As for Mars, it is another inevitability that if humans as a species survive long enough, we will go to other planets, like a baby that survives infancy steps out of its cradle (the Earth) and walks about.
We are just altering the conditions of the planet that we are used to... or more accurately, speeding up the natural rate of a change that is inevitable with or without us.
In order to pursue our lives as we know it, there is no other way but to alter the conditions.... the choice is to either completely abandon our current way of life overnight to stop these changes, or to plan in advance for the challenges that we will need to face by continuing to live as we do.
Both paths are equally difficult and neither is a winning path... as Thomas Sowell says... there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
It is not within human power, at least at this moment, to cause all life to end on this planet. If all existing nuclear weapons were detonated at once, life would still survive on earth. Let's mot make this a moral issue but a practical one.
As for Mars, it is another inevitability that if humans as a species survive long enough, we will go to other planets, like a baby that survives infancy steps out of its cradle (the Earth) and walks about.
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
@chilloutab2 We're far more likely to destroy ourselves under the pretense of trying to "save the world". The planet has been around a lot longer than us, has survived much worse than us, and will still be around long after we're gone.
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
@wildbill83 Exactly!!
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
@chilloutab2 I've always thought it rather egomaniacal/narcissistic for someone to think that the planet/weather/climate should somehow adapt to us, rather than us adapt to it...
as if nature is somehow beholden to humankind... 🙄
as if nature is somehow beholden to humankind... 🙄
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
@wildbill83 My sentiments exactly... like I said in my comment, this line of thought is hubristic and reeks of false pride.
We have to do what we have to do... if that has an effect on the planet, then we have to adapt to the effects or stop doing what we are doing - that is the choice we are faced with.
You can't have your modern lifestyle and a pristine untouched environment like it used to be 1,000 or 10,000 years ago.
Even now, ending hunger and malnourishment is a greater need than reducing carbon in the atmosphere... IMHO.
And without fertilisers, which are produced from petrochemicals, that is impossible.
As for nature, we fail to see that we are part of it... nature is acting though us. What we are doing is natural because we are just another animal species on this planet.
We have to do what we have to do... if that has an effect on the planet, then we have to adapt to the effects or stop doing what we are doing - that is the choice we are faced with.
You can't have your modern lifestyle and a pristine untouched environment like it used to be 1,000 or 10,000 years ago.
Even now, ending hunger and malnourishment is a greater need than reducing carbon in the atmosphere... IMHO.
And without fertilisers, which are produced from petrochemicals, that is impossible.
As for nature, we fail to see that we are part of it... nature is acting though us. What we are doing is natural because we are just another animal species on this planet.
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
@chilloutab2 ending hunger & malnourishment, and completely switching to completely organic/non GMO farming is easy...
we just need to reduce the global population by about 80-90% first... 🤔
we just need to reduce the global population by about 80-90% first... 🤔
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
@wildbill83 Reducing the global population will require ending hunger and bringing prosperity first.
Prosperity shrinks populations, poverty increases populations... there is no historic exception to this... Every time in history in every place, whenever a group of people have become rich their numbers have shrunk and whenever they have become poor their numbers have grown.. this is independent of birth control.
Organic and non-GMO farming does not have the yield per hectare that is required to end hunger now... for that we need fertilisers such as ammonium nitrate, super phosphate and potassium sulfate - all derived from petroleum - and genetically modified seeds for higher yields.
It's a Catch 22... Once we end hunger and bring prosperity by using these then the population will fall on its own and then we can adopt organic farming.
Prosperity shrinks populations, poverty increases populations... there is no historic exception to this... Every time in history in every place, whenever a group of people have become rich their numbers have shrunk and whenever they have become poor their numbers have grown.. this is independent of birth control.
Organic and non-GMO farming does not have the yield per hectare that is required to end hunger now... for that we need fertilisers such as ammonium nitrate, super phosphate and potassium sulfate - all derived from petroleum - and genetically modified seeds for higher yields.
It's a Catch 22... Once we end hunger and bring prosperity by using these then the population will fall on its own and then we can adopt organic farming.
wildbill83 · 41-45, M
@chilloutab2 that was a joke...sorta... 🤔
organic farming will never be able to sustain a modern society, nor is it likely that we'll ever end hunger, no matter how much food is available (all that "humanitarian aid" that gets send to central african countries usually gets seized by militants and either used as leverage or a means to exert control over a starving population).
Money as charity doesn't solve anything either, as people are more likely to spend it on luxuries rather than necessities.
organic farming will never be able to sustain a modern society, nor is it likely that we'll ever end hunger, no matter how much food is available (all that "humanitarian aid" that gets send to central african countries usually gets seized by militants and either used as leverage or a means to exert control over a starving population).
Money as charity doesn't solve anything either, as people are more likely to spend it on luxuries rather than necessities.