Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
Posts
0
Comments
627
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Yes, let's argue over which functional definition of "surviving" is most appropriate. We can create all kinds of global tragedies, mass deaths, endanger the very fabric of civilization by creating economic disaster, have a climate that's too hot to survive without technology in most places, etc etc. But sure, if a few spots with humans might make it, what's the big deeeal?

    You say you're not trying to dismiss it, yet enough of your replies are massively downplaying the danger because "it hasn't happened yet, and look! we've done a thing or two" and this is precisely the issue today.

    People don't and so far have not been able to understand the rate of change and the relative shortness of the time scale, as well as the range of many mass-scale tragedies that are possible which are not the worst outcome.

    Comparing it to doom-saying about nuclear war is simply illogical. Nuclear warfare either will happen, or it won't. Climate change is already a reality, the control of which we've already been largely failing to attain, and due to a combination of mass misunderstanding of it, ineffective government, and economic overdependence of growth, there is no certainty we will in the time that we need to, to prevent more crises. We have a clear understanding of where we're headed and where we will end up from whichever course of action we take, and it ranges from not-great to toppling civilization, with deaths of billions and global economic breakdown somewhere in that range.

    But yes, you can keep your point about survivability, some humans will probably make it, they'll wonder why we were this stupid. I'm sure they'll recognize the brilliance in needing to split hairs about the definition of surviving, if the record of this conversation makes it to that point and they have the ability or desire to retrieve it. Those of us who include basic characteristics of our modern quality of life in the identity of "us" as a society, and the hundreds-of-millions-to-billions that die might take issue with your definition, though. But sure, you can have that one. "We'll" "survive" it.

  • ruleigion

    Jump
  • yeah, he's also made thinly-veiled remarks supporting race-based eugenics, and has a bunch of friends that more openly support it. Fuck that guy. So many grifters, no group is safe from grifters.

  • ruleigion

    Jump
  • more like "your version of a god is kinda ridiculous if you think about it for like a few seconds"

    Xtians: "you can't ever prove something supernatural doesn't exist conclusively, that's why our insanely specific version must be right. Also, we get the fuzzies when we ask ourselves if it's true. Checkmate, everyone."

  • I think you both have good points, there's a lot we can do to tackle the problem, the question is what do we do today?

    Not entirely a rhetorical question, either.

    To jump to where my thinking goes, regulation seems to be the big hurdle, no?

  • Long is a relative term. We've managed to prolong the date to which civilization will "survive", but we're still talking about migrant crises and death of millions in this century, to color in some parameters of what this version of survival means. We're still on the path to self-destruction in single-digit generations.

    We might be "ok" once the "hysterics" boil up to produce more regulation, if they do, the difference of "when" is how much irreversible damage are we going to create and how many ripple-effect issues are we willing to accept on behalf of many generations to come.

    As Al Barlett said, "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. "

  • I'm watching every word you say.

    🙄

    If you mention one more time that having nothing but negative experiences can't make people completely shut down

    That's not remotely what I said.

    [...] I will kill myself.

    That's manipulation of the most ridiculous degree.

    I hate you

    Kinda contradicts your whole thing

    [...] and your death will be on my hands.

    I think you meant to say that the other way around. Asserting this won't make it true, either way. Learn to take responsibility for yourself.

  • It's a false dichotomy to say the existence of negative emotions will make people completely shut down.

    It is, however, unwise to look at the fact that we've avoided the absolute worst by a notch or two, and try to give ourselves the fuzzies about the train wreck that will happen. Complacency breeds inaction. A lack of urgency is exactly what got us here in the first place.

    Negative emotions exist for a reason, their management is a skill we all have to learn to be effective in our behavior, yet they are essential to it.

  • I wonder exactly at what point in this unsurvivable train wreck it'll make sense to stop singing Kumbaya and take out the pitchforks. We're already on the way to probably killing millions of additional people from natural disasters, we've already killed billions of organisms and fucked our ecosystem.