-
Direct Link: https://www.geekxgirls.com/article.php?ID=12040
-
Original Artist: https://humoncomics.com/
I get the sentiment, that we’re not killing nature, just ourselves, but “nature” is not one thing. Killing nature amounts to humans causing incredible suffering to untold trillions of individual animals each with a lilfe, a consciousness.
I saw my Kitty suffocate due to embolism and had to put her down and it’s no less of an awful event because it was a cat and not a human, it screwed me up and it was years ago. I imagine that level of needless suffering happening every day X 1 billion due to human greed and apathy.
“Nature” also has lots of suffering in it even without our help. I agree we shouldn’t cause undue harm, but the suggestion that animals won’t suffer without us is naïve at best.
My condolences for your kitty, but nature would not have granted her the more peaceful end you gave her.
Pretty sure I already specified unnecessary suffering, I didn’t suggest that animals wouldn’t suffer without us.
i like the ever so slight implication here that a handful of deer could presumably cause global warming if we just didn’t exist now.
I wonder how likely that is to be true.
Human-accelerated global warming wouldn’t happen via a handful of deer… But global warming was going to happen even if humans never existed. Global temperatures have waxed and waned since before life existed. The only difference here is that we’re pressing on the gas pedal (literally) and accelerating the process. The idea that global temperatures would have never climbed without humans empowers denialists by giving them a strawman to point at.
Climate protection was never about saving species or eco systems.
It is about not fucking the whole planet wide eco system so that we can’t live anymore on this planet.
However even that we dropped for profits.
I mean basically anything relating to energy would have costed the double amount (at least).
Now we have also to reduce the co2 that was produced 200 years and the one that is triple the amount of the next 10 years.
Great filter theory: can intelligence evolve fast enough to outpace stupidity?
In my completely unprofessional opinion…no.
This is the only correct perspective, and there are relatively few people specifically at fault for the lying that’s been done to the public on important issues.
This is so fucking stupid.
No seriously. Stop. Think. This is SO FUCKING STUPID.
Humans can live IN SPACE. We are NOT destroying ourselves. We are HYPER ADVANCED COCKROACHES. We will easily survive whatever damage we cause to the planet.
The problem with destroying the planet is not that we’re destroying humanity. What a stupid, egocentric take. The problem with destroying the planet IS THAT WE’RE DESTROYING THE PLANET.
“Mass extinction? Eh who cares” is a FUCKING STUPID TAKE and I have no clue why so many people here are okay with it. What the fuck is wrong with all of you? This is NOT OKAY. MASS EXTINCTIONS ARE NOT OKAY.
Is this a fucking psyop? What the fuck?
Just to touch on a problem but there.
Humans can live IN SPACE.
Ahhh no… We can habitat space. We really really can’t live there.
We can’t really give birth or develop in space, gravity unlike ours will eventually deteriorate our bodies, even on Mars you will go blind and start developing clots before too long just from the slightly lower gravity. And that’s nothing of the radiation we are blocked from here on Earth.
The list is long and bad. We are adaptable but mostly on Earth adaptable. Able to survive climates and regions not everything ever. We can probably eventually figure out space but we can never just live there.
So when we destroy the planet we might really just take ourselves out too.
Of course we can. We could build a giant rotating shielded space station. We have all the technology, we just haven’t done it because it’s expensive.
I studied theoretical astrophysics as part of an earth and space exploration field.
Trust me, we really don’t just have all the technology. That doesn’t answer a lot of problems and you are assuming our level of science.
We might be able to figure out a good chunk of it if money is of no cost but that’s no guarantee.
Man not even to talk about material cost. It would take us decades.
Name a few problems.
Yeah I am not inspired to actually bother answering that if you are coming into this without an expectation of an actual conversation.
It sounds more like you want a fight and that’s not what I’m doing.
Space is not an easy answer. Even if you just want it to be.
I don’t really like “trust me bro” takes on things.
Yeah and you are doing the same. I pulled my credentials you just don’t want to be wrong cause it hurts your feelings.
And more important than the below discussion, anyone got any more fucking “ACKSUALLY” comments from the goddamn peanut gallery?
It’s a conversation. Are you really this upset just cause reality is less magical than science fiction?
It’s not a peanut gallery. It’s the rest of the users on this site. The whole point of being here.
Lemmy is the most socially maladapted userbase I’ve ever seen on an internet forum. Almost every single time you make a statement, some hair-splitting contrarian will show up with a single counter example to derail the discussion.
I’m upset because you people need to learn how to communicate, and I’ll keep cussing at you until you get it.
The idea of living in space was on topic that you brought up.
You were wrong about it.
If you are upset then get off the Internet don’t take it out on other people assuming you are the only one who is right.
Blah blah no one cares
Well, survive yes. But self-sufficiency is a big problem. The world is nowadays so interconnected that even a problem in only one region can severely affect all of humanity (e.g. semiconductors from Taiwan). So yes, a collapse of our modern society is certainly possible.
Destroying the planet is not really a thing. Mass extinctions in the past were a big deal but at the same time: Earth recovered. We only have a big problem because the plants/animals we need might go extinct.
Obviously valuing nature and wildlife diversity in and of itself is good but it doesn’t have any intrinsic value in regards to supporting society.
Destroying the planet is not really a thing
Also, can everyone please shut the fuck up with the “Well ACKSHUALLY, you’re not destroying the literal ball of rock and magma so you’re not destroying the planet”. Fuck you, you know what it means.
Sorry, I meant “destroy the planet” as in lifeless/only single celled organisms.
And you can kind of see humanity as “just another big asteroid impact”. Nature will recover competeley over the next million years or so. That’s what I meant with mass extinctions being kind of inconsequential for the planet as a whole on geological time scales.
Obviously mass extinctions are also bad besides their effect on human society, I just meant that that is mostly a spiritual one thats hard to measure, about lost potential and eradicating a species. As a thought experiment, is eradicating a disease, a form of life, inherently negative? Mosquitoes? Do you agree that it’s a big achievement that we eradicated small pox? What if we eradicate all existing diseases?
Mass extinctions are different. We should be aiming to never have any more mass extinctions ever.
Mass extinctions are BAD. Not because of how it affects human society, Jesus Christ. They’re just bad because we shouldn’t be fucking up the planet. That should be a baseline moral understanding and it’s terrifying that none of you are seeing it.
I think you might have misread the message of this comic. It’s not saying mass extinction is ok, or that we shouldn’t try to preserve the environment. It’s saying nature doesn’t need us, and we are killing ourselves. Nature and life will go on long after climate change kill us all. It’s saying humans are so egocentric they use the words “destroying the planet” when they only destroy themselves.
Also as far as I know we can’t live in space for very long currently.
We might be able to evolve and adapt to the harsh condition of space… in a few generations of breeding in space.
You see the Catch-22
Nature needs us to stop destroying nature.
Mother Gaia is a cruel and brutal bitch. Just read up on Darwin. No nazis killed as many beings as natural selection
Or limited and fallible.
We’re actually going through the 6th mass extinction right now, so actually we are kinda killing most everything on the pla et, not just us.
We should want to preserve that. Unfortunately a handful of old rich dudes don’t care.
Some things yes, most things… Not by a long shot.
You could always google it instead of denying that it’s happening.
Yeah, the 6th mass extinction.
Up and to the right. Line must go up.
Going through? Yes. Causing? Yes. Could have modified or prevented it? Also yes in countless and effective ways over literally centuries.
Will we? No. No, we will not.
Cause the rich will be fine. They’re simply not affected by it.
Maybe the old ones who will die soon. But everybody else, including their children will be affected.
you missed the point completely. life has always survived mass extinction events and will survive this one too. life will eventually flourish once again and humanity will have been a blip in earths history
Right, the Gaia presented in this comic is a mother nature who does not give a shit about the lives of billions of animals. She only cares if life as a whole survives, she doesn’t care how many species go extinct and become lost forever. Only humans care about that.
Humans are the universe’s way of giving a shit about itself.
Humans are basically just another massive asteroid hitting earth. And just as mindless.
Nature will survive, this specific bird species perhaps not.
This specific bird is way to forgiving. It’s more like saying if on average 1 species dies every million years on average, we have killed thousands of species in a thousand years. Then throw in the idea that we also could say the percentage of population of those species we killed would be over half of them, we can say to ourselves, yeah this is really being accelerated. Mass extinction has already begun. People who say humans will survive it are optimistic because our adaptability. It’s more like if you want your descendants to be able to go outside and be able to breathe without life support systems, you should so something about it.
Guy is cute. Wanna hug him too 🥰
Removed by mod
And we are running it straight to hell
Removed by mod
Oh look it’s a fake Christian. Someone who doesn’t follow what Christ told them to do.
No, just a shitty roleplaying troll.
I don’t believe your mythology, but imagine giving someone a wonderful gift to enjoy and life off, and they drop their pants and shit all over it.
Removed by mod
Did you read what they wrote?
Removed by mod
Are you a stupid person or a stupid troll? Probably both.
- sees someone disagree with their mythology
- proceeds to assume they must be a communist and try and insult them
You’re not a very good Christian.
Bad troll is bad.
Why the fuck are you bringing up communism and “devil worship” when literally no one said anything about it?
Communism is devil worship
Based, long live comrade Satan!
You worship the stock market and private property like a golden calf.
Exactly. As a Christian we should be caretakers of the earth because God saw it and it was good and made us to look after it
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
story of my life, i hope.
I think it’ll be funny to have a well known legacy, but without people having any idea of who the fuck i am.
God speed humanity, you fucking suck.
I’ve been saying this for years.
Mother Gaia is Savage 😳
My hero! She gives and takes life without hesitation. If you can’t cut it, you cease to exist. There is no discussion of politics, neurodivergency, gender, or religion. 🥰
I see someone is asking to be dumped in the middle of the atlantic alone to test whether they “cut it” or not.
Well, not until you brought it up.
😞
Nature doesn’t have a consciousness, it just is. I think to anthropomorphize it as having one, to conceptualize it as being some kind of actor with goals or morals, is kind of to not understand it fundamentally, or to accept what it is. It’s just another extension of the naturalist fallacy.
That’s not really to advocate, you know, for climate change, or what have you, but I also don’t really believe that this is going to be the thing that takes people out, weirdly? I mean, certainly, the holocene extinction is going to be a thing, and it’s going to cause mass human and animal suffering and extinction on a scale that is only precedented by meteors and the like. That’s looking pretty inevitable, at this point, to me. The thing is, I don’t think the species as a whole, the human species, really needs or relies on nature to survive, at this point. Pollinators, maybe, but aren’t we at a point where corn and other crops upon which we rely for a good, like, 50% of our mass produced highly processed food is really reliant on a lot of “natural” things. Or, isn’t reliant on like, nature, as a whole. It’s all as a result of discrete resources which are highly individualized and pretty isolated. Maybe large amounts of the land becomes non-arable, I dunno.
I think more broadly though, what I find to be slightly more probable than that as a counterargument is frankly that I can kind of imagine the end of the world, without the end of capitalism. Most people say it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, right, but they still imagine the end of the world as being kind of mutually inclusive to the end of capitalism. No, I think capitalism, I think capitalists, our plutocrats, our idiots in charge, would probably rather keep the planet on a tenuous kind of life support, where you don’t really have non-globalized, local ecology, environmental variation, the like. I think they would rather prevent the apocalypse by whatever margin is most deemed most profitable. We have schemes for cloud-seeding to block out more UV light, which would probably kill a bunch of plants and mess up a ton of ecosystems from geographically irregular and potentially unpredictable irrigation. We have schemes for dumping huge amounts of iron oxide into the ocean to kickstart massive algae blooms that can sequester carbon dioxide and probably increase ocean acidification. We have schemes for genetically modifying human and food supply-threatening viruses and invasive species to start to self-terminate after the genes propagate to like, the seventh generation. Hell, there’s even some level by which people might argue that invasive species are good, because they provide an inherent surplus population sourced from natural ecology that humans could kind of skim the top off. When those things end up going sideways, or otherwise threatening the bottom line, we’ll probably start seeing people just implement more short term solutions, that kick the can five years down the road, while mass ecological and human extinctions are constantly ongoing and potential quality of life plummets for the general population. Apocalypse as an ongoing process, rather than as a singular event.
Thinking that an ecological apocalypse would be the end of it, that humans are that easily crushed and nature can/will just go on totally unbothered, I think that’s a rather optimistic viewpoint. It also missess the mass amounts of suffering which are currently ongoing by looking to some theoretical future, much like AI tech evangelists do with the singularity, idiot leftists tend to do with “the revolution”, evangelicals do with the rapture. We need to, uhh, maybe figure out a better structure and approach, here.
We rely on nature for everything. The water wars will make that more apparent, I suppose.
Yeah see, that’s what I’m talking about. Like what the fuck would the water wars even be? That shit don’t make no sense, it’s not like water is a non-renewable resource. Freshwater is maybe a larger concern, right, but climate change means more solar heat which means more water evaporation which means more fresh rainwater and not less. Maybe in combination with increased acidification because of emissions and related things, maybe in combination with a decreased capacity to absorb that rainwater because of desertification and much increased rainwater runoff due to too large a volume of water for a dried out landscape. No part of that really involves a water war, though. That’s just some pop culture shit.
Yes, the water wars will be about fresh water. No one goes to war over water that needs to be boiled. And no, climate change does not mean more fresh water.
