Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Car Hater
May 7, 2007

wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

Byzantine posted:

Trying to puzzle out the rules of greater ethics and the meaning of meaning is overdoing it, imo, when the real crux is that the immediate future is loving bleak. Having a kid now just means they'll come of age right after the fifth once-in-a-century economic collapse and be stuck making $2.13/day in balmy Alaska.

This is my general reason not to except I think it's way worse and mammals are pretty much done by the end of this century.

That said, I also think that civilization is bad, and bad for us, and therefore that it is always immoral for civilized sentients to reproduce. Even the term, reproduction, captures the pitilessly machinistic lens through which civilization understands the world.




-posted using smoke signals from a hut in the woods-

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Car Hater
May 7, 2007

wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

DrSunshine posted:

What is "civilization"? Are hunter-gatherers not civilized? Are the seasonal settlements of slash-and-burn agriculturalists not civilized? Is the production of tools not a civilized behavior? The coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest were such abundant places, fed by the great upwelling of deep ocean nutrients surged up from the depths by the westerly flow of the wind, that they allowed gatherers to produce complex hierarchical societies despite not having agriculture. We have evidence for this in the massive shell-mounds that they left behind. Are they civilized or uncivilized?



This is a village in the highlands of New Guinea. People have been living in these areas for something like 40,000 years, cultivating taro and digging incredible stepped terraces in order to feed populations of thousands. They did this with Paleolithic technology. Are they civilized or uncivilized?



This was made by a person some 21-35,000 years ago. Is this not a product of a civilized human being, with the ability to imagine, plan, create tools and implements from nature, think abstractly, and render those abstract concepts into a representation in the world?

My point here in asking these rhetorical questions is to say that there's no distinct boundary that makes up "civilization" and some mythical, imagined pre-agricultural existence. Archaeological evidence shows that hunter-gatherers and agriculturalists coexisted for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

In fact, it seems that hunter-gathering and farming were mutual activities - people who lived in areas where agriculture was favored tended to settle into agricultural villages as part of a gradual tendency, starting with creating seasonal storehouses and progressing to permanent villages. They traded with their pastoralist and hunter-gatherer neighbors who lived in the more marginal areas where agriculture was unfavorable.

We have been making tools, observing the world around us, making inferences, deliberately planning where to live and what to do with our environment for as long as we have been human - and even far before genus Homo even existed. Even pre-agricultural tribes intensely modified and altered natural landscapes to better suit their needs - isn't literal terraforming an act of civilization?

To wish to hearken back to a pre-civilized era is to wish to eradicate that which makes us human, and to point at pre-industrial or pre-agricultural peoples as "better off because they are uncivilized" is to accept the same 19th century Imperialist framing that led to their decimation, and moreover to erase their essential humanity.



Lol no, it's not agriculture that's the root problem, it's language. Language is the first and most terrible of all technologies, and what makes us human, and yes it should obviously be eradicated because it's not viable. Consciousness grants a degree of competitiveness that is incompatible with ecosystems perpetuating themselves. Humanity - the state of being self-elevated above a base animal - is a dead end biologically.

Car Hater
May 7, 2007

wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!
Nah I'll stick with it thanks, one more for the big list of things that should not be but are anyways

Car Hater
May 7, 2007

wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Who made that list?

The concept of lists itself did - it is the form that is the problem you see, and the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe

Mulva posted:

I mean I can't take your failure and ignorance from you, so instead I'll hope you enjoy whatever comfort they bring.

Sounds exactly like every other human's experience, love you too!

Car Hater
May 7, 2007

wolf. bike.
Wolf. Bike.
Wolf! Bike!
WolfBike!
WolfBike!
ARROOOOOO!

DrSunshine posted:

Oh my god. :psyboom:

Why does every stance or argument on this site have to be framed in absolute, extreme binary opposites?

Because we're already extinct and it's fun to tilt at windmills about why. :P

I'm aware of all the points you raised, and don't ascribe any sort of mystical woo woo balance to nature, take a chill pill. I take roughly the same stance, hard to moralize the oxygen crisis. But to the things living at the time, it was a total disaster. A quirk of evolution drove the annihilation of its source organism and the vast majority of the rest of life at the time. Such is consciousness now.

E; see, I'm not wishing for mammalian gigadeath, it's just here already. Small poo poo might make it through this millennium but nothing over like, medium dog size. Naked mole rats probably have the best odds.

Car Hater fucked around with this message at 16:22 on May 16, 2021

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply