My brother in Christ, helluva people, especially young, religious or not, wish openly or secretly for some sort of apocalypse, reset of civilization, zombie pandemics and so on and so forth.
I am not religious, but I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off. We’re a net negative for almost everything else on this planet.
The difference is that I, and all - or at least, the vast majority - of the folks you refer to aren’t actively trying to make it happen.
deleted by creator
Every century of humanity’s existence has lengthened our lives and enhanced our standards of living.
It also continues to make things progressively worse for other species. Are you saying you think that we’ll eventually find a way to overcome the heat death of the universe, and that that chance makes anything we do in the meantime justified?
Or are you saying that since we’re the most intelligent species on the planet, our comfort is what matters, and if anything else suffers for that end, it’s okay?
Our trajectory is not into the grave, it’s into the stars.
Maybe, but I think we don’t deserve it, and most other life here is worse off for it.
deleted by creator
You judge that “we” against all other species (who are our cousins) deserve do be extinct.
I think a fundamental cornerstone of our disagreement is that you view us as being entitled to special privileges because we’re the dominant intelligence on the planet, whereas I think that bestows upon us additional responsibilities as custodians of the planet.
All that aside, though, I think you’re misunderstanding my viewpoint. I’m not saying that myself or others “deserve” to be extinct; I’m saying that I think it would be a net positive for the planet as a whole if we were. Almost every other species would be better off if we weren’t here. (The exceptions are mostly ones we’ve caused - there’s species near extinction that we’re preserving, but in most cases we caused their near-extinct status. There’s domesticated species that wouldn’t do well in the wild, but we created that reliance on us.) You can’t really compare the widespread intentional devastation we cause to habitats through deforestation, expansion, and pollution (as one example) to a whale eating krill. For one, it’s the natural cycle of life, and their ecosystem is balanced around it. For another, we have the intelligence to recognize and understand what we’re doing, and the fact that we’re continuing to do it anyway is, in my opinion, a wholly unforgivable act.
Without us they are utterly doomed, but with us they have a possibility of being preserved or remembered.
As intelligent creatures, we alone care about being preserved or remembered. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that any other species understands the concept, even, but I’d be interested in reading it if you’ve seen research to the contrary.
There is more to our species than the negatives you seem to be caught up on.
There is, and I am focusing on the negatives, but that’s because I feel that as far as the rest of the planet is concerned, the harm we’re causing out-weigh the positives we bring. That’s all my view is stating - there’s no ‘judging’ or claims that we deserve extinction. Just a belief that, objectively, our presence here is a net negative for the rest of the planet. We’ve removed ourselves from the natural order and now reign above it, and we’re ruining it for everything else.
deleted by creator
You stated very clearly “I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off.” That is a judgment and strangely a “belief” you have self-proclaimed and are now obfuscating.
The two statements that I made, both of which I stand behind, are:
I am not religious, but I honestly think that the best thing that could happen, overall, is humanity killing ourselves off. We’re a net negative for almost everything else on this planet.
[…]I feel that as far as the rest of the planet is concerned, the harm we’re causing out-weigh the positives we bring. That’s all my view is stating - there’s no ‘judging’ or claims that we deserve extinction.
I believe that, from the perspective of the rest of the planet, or the planet’s population as a whole, the best thing that could happen would be us killing ourselves off, yes. That makes no claim that we ‘deserve’ extinction, or that we do not. It’s merely a statement that, as a whole, we cause more problems than we fix. They’d almost all be better off without us.
You’re making a bit of a strawman out of me. I never stated that we didn’t have responsibilities to be a custodian.
I was perhaps misinterpreting your comment that
Our “comfort” does matter most beacasue we are the only ones who know enough to possibly change that.
And if so, then I apologize.
But based on our trajectory are a species, the evidence shows that we will overcome this period and move forward with the preservation of other species and our own.
Are you making this statement based on the fact that we’re still around, and therefore have overcome every other period of hardship we’ve faced (as a species)? With the state of climate change and global warming where it is, we’re moving into unprecedented territory; if we’re basing this statement on our trajectory as a species, I would argue that evidence shows that we’ll continue doing too little until it’s too late. I hope that proves incorrect.
[…]unless a person with the belief that we should all die presses the red button of nuclear annihilation […] The belief that humanity should end is the issue… exactly what the religious people in the article are gunning for.
Yes, and I think I very clearly stated that I disagree with their stance:
The difference is that I, and all - or at least, the vast majority - of the folks you refer to aren’t actively trying to make it happen.
Believing the world would be better off if something were to happen is not the same as actively hoping it does happen or working to make it happen. (Since we’re throwing around logical fallacies, that would be a false equivalence).
You can’t really compare the widespread intentional devastation we cause to habitats through deforestation, expansion, and pollution (as one example) to a whale eating krill. For one, it’s the natural cycle of life, and their ecosystem is balanced around it. For another, we have the intelligence to recognize and understand what we’re doing, and the fact that we’re continuing to do it anyway is, in my opinion, a wholly unforgivable act.
Much to decompress in that statement.
- Human devastation is intentional.
- It cannot be compared to a whale eating krill, because that is “natural” and human behaviour is not “natural”.
- Human behaviour towards our ecosystem is “unforgivable”.
To 1. I think it is more of a collossal case of denial and lazyness than what I would term “intentional”, but the result is the same.
To 2. Do you really think that whales would refrain from eating all the krill (and subsequently starve to extinction) if they had the chance? So why is our behaviour worse? We are a demonstration of the working of the “natural cycle of life”. We are in the process of using up, wiping out or poluting all the ressources that we (and incidentally most higher lifeforms on our planet) need to survive. Due to that we might die out. As would the whales if they ate all the krill (which many other species in the ocean need to survive).
To 3. You are applying human moral standards that no one but us cares about. There is no evidence of a higher authority that could judge us.
Don’t get me wrong, what we are doing right now is beyond stupid. We know what our impact does to the ecosystem and we should do everything we can to change that. But we seem to be unable to do that. That we are discussing this on a medium that produces millions of tonnes of CO2 each year, most of it just to distract us from our life and help us fight boredom, is a perfect sarcastic point to this.
Yet, humans will not be the end of life on this planet. Right now we don’t even have the means to wipe out all life on it, even if we tried. We might just manage to kill of all the higher animals, but that has happened multiple times before in the history of this planet.
This does not make it OK in any way.
To 1. I think it is more of a collossal case of denial and lazyness than what I would term “intentional”, but the result is the same.
I will concede that calling it ‘intentional’ may be heavy-handed. It’s being done with knowledge of the long-term effects, though. We’re making the informed decision to continue… perhaps due to laziness, as you note.
To 2. Do you really think that whales would refrain from eating all the krill (and subsequently starve to extinction) if they had the chance? So why is our behaviour worse? We are a demonstration of the working of the “natural cycle of life”. We are in the process of using up, wiping out or poluting all the ressources that we (and incidentally most higher lifeforms on our planet) need to survive. Due to that we might die out. As would the whales if they ate all the krill (which many other species in the ocean need to survive).
No, I’m sure they would eat all the krill and starve to extinction… that’s how nature works. The krill population is kept in check by the whales, and the whale population is kept in check by the size of the krill population. If there were too many whales, they’d eat too many krill and wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves, and their population would decline, allowing the krill population to resurge. Or they wouldn’t, and both species would go extinct.
We are in the process of using up, wiping out or poluting all the ressources that we (and incidentally most higher lifeforms on our planet) need to survive. Due to that we might die out.
I agree with you, it’s just that, unlike the whale / krill analogy, we’re poised to take out a lot of other species with us when we go. All my view is stating is that it would be a net positive if we died out before that happens.
To 3. You are applying human moral standards that no one but us cares about. There is no evidence of a higher authority that could judge us.
My statement that this was ‘unforgivable’ was in reference to our supposed role as custodians of the planet (as the most intelligent lifeform here). I believe we have a duty to take care of it and that, with respect to that duty, our failing to do so is unforgivable. (I suppose in this respect I am judging us.)
Yet, humans will not be the end of life on this planet. Right now we don’t even have the means to wipe out all life on it, even if we tried. We might just manage to kill of all the higher animals, but that has happened multiple times before in the history of this planet.
I agree with you, and I’m glad for that. I also agree with you that that doesn’t make any of it okay.
We are all headed towards the heat death of the universe with near zero chance for persistence beyond it. (…) With that said, we are the only beings that demonstrate an understanding of that probable future; And are thus the only beings possibly capable of doing anything about it.
You do not really think that, even if some descendant of us still exists at the time of the heat death of the universe (having somehow survived billions of years in a dark universe with no posibillity (to our present knowledge) to generate any kind of usable energy), they will in any way be human? Or even be able to remember or discover that we were their ancestors?
Edit (Addendum): I think even if human descendants should be around at the death of our sun, they will not be able to be called (or remember being) human.
deleted by creator
I’m not very religious either and I think you’re an idiot, since only idiots give up the potential for greatness, because they themselves forget to balance out the daily intake of negativity with positivity.
I’m sure calling people idiots give them more hope in humanity.
A guy who willingly, consciously poisons himself with negativity and becomes a cancerous nihilist, who spreads his misery onto others, deserves no empathy. It’s pearls before swines.
And you, kind sir, instead of being judgmental towards me, feel free to put that energy into fixing the nihilist, if you feel so empathetic.
I can do both. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. I try to never use insults to win arguments. Be the change you want to see in the world.
I can do both.
But you won’t. At best you’re gonna make some honey-sweet comment as the means of proving me wrong, offering fake sympathies, but you won’t progress much further. Because being judgmental towards others gives you a pleasure boost, at the cost of time, focus and energy that the process of helping others requires…
So no. You won’t.
Do you have something you want to talk/ vent about? I’ll listen 👂
I’ll go first. Climate change scares the crap out of me.
You’re literally judging others in these posts. You seem a little unhinged. Obtain meds, take them.
That’s not idiocy so much as apathy. Apathy comes from repeated disappointment.
Giving up to apathy counts as idiocy anyway.
Would you like to actually offer a counter-argument to my position? I’d be happy to discuss it. If you’re just going to sling ad hominem insults, I’m simply not interested.
You have no position. You have only regrets, wrong opinions and false assumptions based on highly subjective and cherrypicked experiences.
People like you disgust me, because you willingly poison yourselves with toxic content and pretend it’s all there is in the world.
You call me a nihilist, but either you didn’t read what I said, or you don’t know what nihilism means.
My position is that humans are making things worse for almost everything else on the planet, and that the planet as a whole would be better if we weren’t here anymore. I’m not really sure how much more clear I can make that. We destroy habitats, pollute everything we touch, we’re the cause of global warming, we’re only interested in extracting resources and have near complete disregard for the effects on everything else.
You can make the point that there are people working to change this - and you’re right, there are, but that’s not a counter to the point I’m trying to make. We are, as a species, having a net negative impact on this planet, moreso than any other species. Change my mind.
I see there’s not any discussion to be had here. Referencing a bible verse in an atheist community is probably not the best tactic, but that aside, I wish you the best, but I’m not going to engage with you further.
And do all of those people have great representation and power?
Do they all have to, or is it ok with you that some do?
It’s not about having to have to. It’s about having it, because that shit affects others.
Are you implying that there are no politicians, diplomats, generals and other people with considerable power and influence, who aren’t religious, but secretly or openly wish for the world to go down in flames?
Such people aren’t usually in power. If you have some population polls, I’ll take a look.
Such people aren’t usually in power.
If you have some research, studies, hard data backing this claim, I’ll take a look.
Otherwise, please cease presenting your opinion as truth.
Which rock have you been living under?
Slavoj Zizek wrote that zombie stories like WWZ and the Living Dead movies are popular is because it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. People have so absorbed Thatcher’s “There is no alternative” that the only alternative we can picture is the literal destruction of society itself.
