61–70 of 73 posts
> There is no technology, survey, or program in operation today to monitor all the potential threats to Earth. Because it's much easier to prepare to go live on Mars, apparently. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservation and awareness of our natural resources is not a "left-wing progressive" thing. Exhibit A: Ducks Unlimited. A lot of very right-wing hunters contribute millions of dollars every year to preserve natural habitats. They see and understand the impact humans have on the natural environment, and pay good money to preserve those habitats.
That's not the original post's argument and was not my response. Sanctimonious criticizing of the environmental effects of industrialization via sarcasm is absolutely a left-wing progressive thing. It's not clever, it's not cute, and it's not effective at arguing in favor of conservation.
"If you don't kiss my ass I'll burn this planet to the ground"
And you wonder why some of us think that humans are on a self destructive path.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are an incredibly hardy species. We are clever. We find ways to survive in deserts, mountains, small islands, icey tundras and anything in between. We’re that… so far. But at the same time: - our track record is short, only about 300kY, for comparison while not a specific species the dinosaurs lasted for around 175000kY, and were the dominant life form for 135000, until they were taken out by an asteroid, apex s…
> our track record is short, only about 300kY, for comparison while not a specific species the dinosaurs lasted for around 175000kY, and were the dominant life form for 135000, until they were taken out by an asteroid, apex species did last for millions of years I think that's a pretty bad comparison. A much better comparison is with a species that's also a mammal, spread world-wide, extremely adaptable and exhibits…
Not at all. Most species that over breed their local environment have die offs. But, if the overpopulation is too severe they can damage the environment and go extinct from the environment.
But, you're looking at the local scale and this is much too small of scope. A few billion years ago there was something closer to the game we play called the Great Oxygen Catastrophe. This unfolded at a global scale and lead to worldwide die offs of bacteria as they produced too much oxygen. Eventually it is thought they caused the extinction of a huge portion of the oxygen producing bacteria and paved the way for lifeforms that could survive in the altered planet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Conservation and awareness of our natural resources is not a "left-wing progressive" thing. Exhibit A: Ducks Unlimited. A lot of very right-wing hunters contribute millions of dollars every year to preserve natural habitats. They see and understand the impact humans have on the natural environment, and pay good money to preserve those habitats.
That's not the original post's argument and was not my response. Sanctimonious criticizing of the environmental effects of industrialization via sarcasm is absolutely a left-wing progressive thing. It's not clever, it's not cute, and it's not effective at arguing in favor of conservation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We are an incredibly hardy species. We are clever. We find ways to survive in deserts, mountains, small islands, icey tundras and anything in between. We’re that… so far. But at the same time: - our track record is short, only about 300kY, for comparison while not a specific species the dinosaurs lasted for around 175000kY, and were the dominant life form for 135000, until they were taken out by an asteroid, apex s…
> our track record is short, only about 300kY, for comparison while not a specific species the dinosaurs lasted for around 175000kY, and were the dominant life form for 135000, until they were taken out by an asteroid, apex species did last for millions of years I think that's a pretty bad comparison. A much better comparison is with a species that's also a mammal, spread world-wide, extremely adaptable and exhibits…
And we’re nowhere near that is my point. Not sure what you think yours is?
> Technically that can be said for any species that breeds beyond carrying capacity of its local environment. Humans are no different.
Absolutely not. A species exceeding their environment’s carrying capacity will have die-offs then the survivors carry on. It does not make its own environment unlivable for itself, which is what humanity is doing.
Humanity is also heading towards exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity but that is a separate issue.
.. and earth would be better for it.
I've noticed an uptick in car accidents in my area. Students sit in the classroom scrolling tiktok. I don't think we're going to make it.
Every generation has said similar despairing things about the next, yet there always is a next generation to complain about. No, it's not different this time.
Humanity hasn't always had nukes. I think Ukraine/Russia is somewhat likely to go worldwide, and it's going to be hard to stop a large nuclear exchange at that point. I'd be surprised if we have 5 years left.
More progressive propaganda thinly packaged as journalism. Humans are animals, and nature has selected us to survive again and again. For crying outloud, we've made it to outer space, one of the most hostile environments for life forms, and we're pushing to go further. The spread of the "humans suck, we're so awful" rhetoric in the left-wing media really puts a bad taste in my mouth.
Huh? H. Sapiens is a recent species, and has in its short career already brought most ecosystems worldwide to near collapse. It is 'successful' in the way a wastrel scion of a wealthy family appears at the height of his spending, just before penury, destitution, and syphilis hits.
I happen to think a major nuclear exchange will take us out in the next few decades, but if not, nothing is likely to prevent the continuing destruction of most life on our planet. Fouling the nest can work for a while. But then it doesn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not the original post's argument and was not my response. Sanctimonious criticizing of the environmental effects of industrialization via sarcasm is absolutely a left-wing progressive thing. It's not clever, it's not cute, and it's not effective at arguing in favor of conservation.
No, you’re not this upset over sarcasm; you’re just backtracking.