|
https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/982322830082625536 This bodes well.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
TACD posted:The real Remember when they invested in Nuclear but wanted to have all of their big oil guys walk across the street and set up the nuclear companies like oil companies and it failed because they didn't listen to the nuke guys? That's the point they became climate deniers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 06:03
|
|
is that they spent all the time and money to figure this out but then didn't make the simple logical connection that it would therefore be very profitable to invest in renewables and get ahead of the game. What was all this research for if not to get a decade of lead time on smart business decisions?
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:Poor to lower middle class in the American south. Almost nobody I know with children planned for them, and they all seem to be really poor and unhappy about having them. I guess my point is lets worry about that first because its a much less controverial argument. Lets get to the point where only happy stable couples are having children. Then if the population is still rising too fast we can go from there. And all my friends have PhDs and I am sure many will die childless. Old, and well-off, and childless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 08:12
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:I love cats but I work locally to help companion animals and the people in need who care for them rather than fling myself across the globe in order to satisfy some selfish desire. You can literally calculate it though. We're at 6 tons per year for our household. Just a rough estimate but better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 09:33
|
|
|
edit: removed post it was dumb. whole debate is dumb. talk about climate, dumbheads.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 11:13
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:https://twitter.com/ZLabe/status/982322830082625536 This is bad. Talk about this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 12:09
|
|
|
Human larvae are worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
ubachung posted:Which part exactly? I stated some facts and posed a question. I didn't even state my own opinion. That's a pretty telling response though. That's insane though, the rest of the natural world wouldn't thank you for your choice because they're literally not capable of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
Relevant Tangent posted:That's insane though, the rest of the natural world wouldn't thank you for your choice because they're literally not capable of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
For every $1 the US put into adding renewable energy last year, China put in $3 https://qz.com/1247527/for-every-1-the-us-put-into-renewable-energy-last-year-china-put-in-3/
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Is...is that the only reason you'd ever do something for someone else? Nature isn't "someone else", and you can't do things "for nature". That post is adopting a specifically human attitude towards nature and using that to argue for an anti-human perspective. It's incoherent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Nature suffers under humans, therefore nature should not have been born. This is my jrpg time travel plot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
So are we agreed that saying third worlders’ lives are less valuable than those of animals is super hosed up and gross?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So are we agreed that saying third worlders’ lives are less valuable than those of animals is super hosed up and gross? Something can be bad without being racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Personally I think it's pretty gross that people think that humanity should suffer no consequences or feel no shame for our utter disregard for the natural world. Sure, we've annihilated countless unrecoverable animal species and hosed up the earth so bad that we've practically guaranteed our own extinction, but it's okay, nature probably would have done it anyway at some point! And animals don't have morals so who cares if we kill them all, am I right? :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Personally I think it's pretty gross that people think that humanity should suffer no consequences or feel no shame for our utter disregard for the natural world. Sure, we've annihilated countless unrecoverable animal species and hosed up the earth so bad that we've practically guaranteed our own extinction, but it's okay, nature probably would have done it anyway at some point! And animals don't have morals so who cares if we kill them all, am I right? :iamafag: Literally LOL if you think anybody posting here has seen an animal other than a rat or a pigeon in the last few years. It's all abstract, I bet a lot of them don't even think animals can feel pain anyways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
Papal Infallibility posted:Literally LOL if you think anybody posting here has seen an animal other than a rat or a pigeon in the last few years. It's all abstract, I bet a lot of them don't even think animals can feel pain anyways. Jokes on you, I've seen several squirrels!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Nature isn't "someone else", and you can't do things "for nature". Thug Lessons posted:That post is adopting a specifically human attitude towards nature and using that to argue for an anti-human perspective. It's incoherent. e: Is your point that animals would never sacrifice themselves for us, and the only "coherent" value system for dealing with the natural world is like the lowest common denominator for life? Or is this something about the more superior value system destroying itself in favor of more selfish ones, by destroying the species that maintains it? A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Papal Infallibility posted:Literally LOL if you think anybody posting here has seen an animal other than a rat or a pigeon in the last few years. It's all abstract, I bet a lot of them don't even think animals can feel pain anyways. Well I mean OOCC has flown to six continents to pet cats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:05
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So are we agreed that saying third worlders’ lives are less valuable than those of animals is super hosed up and gross? Sure, and we should absolutely try condoms and education for everyone before one-child policies or whatever. Can we agree that saying that the right to procreate endlessly trumps the right of any animals we can't domesticate to exist outside of a zoo is equally hosed up and gross?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
rivetz posted:lost in the shuffle of this week's episode of Celebrity White House: This one's even worse than that Exxon one from last year I mean, they even made a documentary about it. This movie was created by Shell in 1991: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Personally I think it's pretty gross that people think that humanity should suffer no consequences or feel no shame for our utter disregard for the natural world. Sure, we've annihilated countless unrecoverable animal species and hosed up the earth so bad that we've practically guaranteed our own extinction, but it's okay, nature probably would have done it anyway at some point! And animals don't have morals so who cares if we kill them all, am I right? :iamafag: Not "probably would have", but "already has for 99.9% of species and will inevitably do for all species". There is no justice in nature. The point isn't that there's no reason we should care about species extinction, but that any reason we come up with, (of which there are plenty, moral and practical), inevitably acknowledges a special role for humans. We're not the first species to drive others to extinction, or even (potentially) to extinct most, but we're the first to know we're doing it, or care, let alone feel guilty about it. And that, to my mind, kind of tempers any misanthropic reading. The other option, of course, is to view humans as just another species doing whatever it does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Not "probably would have", but "already has for 99.9% of species and will inevitably do for all species". There is no justice in nature. The point isn't that there's no reason we should care about species extinction, but that any reason we come up with, (of which there are plenty, moral and practical), inevitably acknowledges a special role for humans. We're not the first species to drive others to extinction, or even (potentially) to extinct most, but we're the first to know we're doing it, or care, let alone feel guilty about it. And that, to my mind, kind of tempers any misanthropic reading. I think I get your point a little better, (and if I understand correctly, you don't personally feel we should be accelerating the decline of biodiversity if we can take steps to mitigate our impact) but I do think "well, everything will be extinct someday" is pretty lovely justification for not caring. I mean, taking that logic to the extreme, why care about anything? I mean, eventually nothing will exist due to entropy, so what does anything matter? Those kinds of ideas can go a long way toward justifying horrific behavior.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
I see animals on the f***** time nerds
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Not "probably would have", but "already has for 99.9% of species and will inevitably do for all species". There is no justice in nature. The point isn't that there's no reason we should care about species extinction, but that any reason we come up with, (of which there are plenty, moral and practical), inevitably acknowledges a special role for humans. We're not the first species to drive others to extinction, or even (potentially) to extinct most, but we're the first to know we're doing it, or care, let alone feel guilty about it. And that, to my mind, kind of tempers any misanthropic reading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Couldn't this special role be "First life form to voluntarily end itself, in acknowledgement of the suffering it causes"? Or we could work to mitigate our impacts on nature? I'm not sure that annihilation is a proportionate response to suffering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Accccctually, I think that's an unfair phrasing: ubachung seems to be a equal-opportunity misanthrope. ITT they seem to be encouraging comparatively privileged 1st worlders like you and I to abstain from procreation. Most humans on this planet aren’t WEIRD first worlders though. It’s mathematically a fact that if you say human lives in general are not worth more than animals’, most if those human lives will be third world lives 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Most humans on this planet aren’t WEIRD first worlders though. It’s mathematically a fact that if you say human lives in general are not worth more than animals’, most if those human lives will be third world lives In sum, while it is not factually false to say ubachung wants African babies to starve, it is not a fair characterisation of their position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:There's still a difference between an implicit entailment and an explicit statement. When I say "I want all humans to die", and you paraphrase me as "Cingulate wants all babies to die", you are in fact being accurate; but you're still mischaracterising my position. An analogy: I ask you, can you please bring me a sandwich? You go and buy a piece of ham and throw it at me. "A sandwich contains ham, thus you said 'bring ham to me', which I just did!" You're factually correct, but language doesn't actually work the way fishmech talks. If your response to me asking you for a sandwich is to throw ham at me, you're a madman. It’s a fairly obvious first order consequence of what he said, IMO it’s reasonable to expect peope to think through the consequences of their statements one step forward
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Fly Molo posted:Or we could work to mitigate our impacts on nature? I'm not sure that annihilation is a proportionate response to suffering.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:I think I get your point a little better, (and if I understand correctly, you don't personally feel we should be accelerating the decline of biodiversity if we can take steps to mitigate our impact) but I do think "well, everything will be extinct someday" is pretty lovely justification for not caring. I mean, taking that logic to the extreme, why care about anything? I mean, eventually nothing will exist due to entropy, so what does anything matter? Those kinds of ideas can go a long way toward justifying horrific behavior. Sure, I agree. And in even the most cold-hearted analysis you'd still want to conserve as much biodiversity as possible for purely selfish reasons. The point is that looking to nature for any sort of justice is useless, because it doesn't have any. You don't even need to look at extinction for this. How about lynx and snowshoe hare population cycles, regulated by a strict law of carrying capacity and producing a cycle of population booms and die-offs? Human conceptions of justice are alien to nature. By pitting human interests against nature, especially when cast in apocalyptic terms of the survival of humanity versus the survival of the natural world, you're only projecting a naive, good vs. evil narrative onto an impossibly complex problem: how should humans relate to the living world around them and what moral standards should apply?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Couldn't this special role be "First life form to voluntarily end itself, in acknowledgement of the suffering it causes"? Honestly, if your platform is "voluntary human extinction", the obvious response is "you first". We don't need to get too philosophical to forget about that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
The argument is "voluntary reduction in human population to a level which is possible to support without industrial civilization is necessary in order to accommodate the timely drawdown of said civilization. Alternatively, attempt to continue said civilization, and run the apparently rather high risk of causing a mass extinction that could include us."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Honestly, if your platform is "voluntary human extinction", the obvious response is "you first". We don't need to get too philosophical to forget about that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:The argument is "voluntary reduction in human population to a level which is possible to support without industrial civilization is necessary in order to accommodate the timely drawdown of said civilization. Alternatively, attempt to continue said civilization, and run the apparently rather high risk of causing a mass extinction that could include us." I mean, the argument I responded to was literally "if the choice is between the survival of humans or the natural world, I choose the natural world". You guys are over there having an argument about anti-natalism that I'm way too high-level to care about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay, so you don't actually have an argument for calling the original post incoherent, you just liked the way it sounded. I don't need an argument for calling it incoherent when it's manifestly abhorrent. It's incoherent if you formulate it in a way that isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:I mean, the argument I responded to was literally "if the choice is between the survival of humans or the natural world, I choose the natural world". You guys are over there having an argument about anti-natalism that I'm way too high-level to care about. Why respond then? There is no choice; there are no humans on an Earth with a collapsed biosphere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:The argument is "voluntary reduction in human population to a level which is possible to support without industrial civilization is necessary in order to accommodate the timely drawdown of said civilization. Alternatively, attempt to continue said civilization, and run the apparently rather high risk of causing a mass extinction that could include us." What do you mean by "without industrial civilization"? Are you giving up electricty? Also, we're already in a mass extinction so the ship has sailed on that one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Car Hater posted:Why respond then? There is no choice; there are no humans on an Earth with a collapsed biosphere. I doubt it. I'm with Peter Ward: quote:My sense of it is, with our technology, we’re just too good, we can engineer and keep some part of us alive on Earth. The only way out of it would be a wholesale nuclear exchange. But barring that, a greenhouse world won’t kill us all off. If worse comes to worst, we’ll have gas masks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:It’s a fairly obvious first order consequence of what he said, IMO it’s reasonable to expect peope to think through the consequences of their statements one step forward Also it's not how language works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:46
|
|