• Adderbox76@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t think that’s an “if” at all. I firmly believe that that’s exactly it.

    The same behaviours that we needed to evolve are harmful now that we’ve reached a potential “post-scarcity” stage.

    To put it more bluntly, the drive to compete for resources in order to survive is what made us the dominant species. Now that post-scarcity is essentially upon us, our nature is to create artificial scarcity in order to satiate that drive for competition. And it will be the ultimate end of us.

    • Weslee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      In the grand scale of the universe we aren’t even a blip, any “permanent” damage we cause will be reversed over hundreds of thousands or millions of years after we’ve wiped ourselves out.

      And even if there was some kind of damage that couldn’t be reversed, the next cycle of life would just adapt to whatever the issue is

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        I mean the earth has already survived having the first moon crash into it, as well as a giant meteor that caused an ice age. We have t quite gotten to that level, yet.

      • Alto@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        It’s something people don’t realize. We may be a scourge on the Earth, but we’re still nowhere even near the top of the list of worst things to happen to this planet.

        As the other reply brought up, Theia crashing into Earth. Flood basalt events. The Chicxulub impact.

        We may be able to cause some real awful shit, but we still are nothing compared to what the forces of nature can produce. And just to clarify, I’m not saying this to in any way downplay the seriousness of climate change, or that we should do nothing about it.

  • sbr32@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    I don’t know if this theory has a proper name but I have seen it multiple times.

    If a species has the ability to push their technology to the point they could become a space faring species, that technology will destroy the civilization before it can get there

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      It may depend on the rate they get to that point. Add in a dense energy source that’s suddenly available and the rise of tech may be lethal. Perhaps the lucky ones don’t have something like petroleum so their species matures long before they ruin their world.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Back up…dude with a 10th grade level understanding of biology and chemistry coming through with a question…

        So carbon-based life forms can, under the right circumstances, decompose into long chains of hydrocarbons like Petroleum.

        Does that mean silicon-based life forms under the right circumstances would break down into hydrosilicates like caulk?

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I don’t know about the end result under the same extremes. I do know that silicon life, while not impossible, it’s probably unlikely. Silicon does parallel carbon in some ways including a similar location on the periodic chart (which is why it got attention from scifi writers), but the issue is simply silicon is nowhere near as “greedy” as carbon bonds.

          But it is a big universe.

    • classic@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The thing is we could largely retain all our advances and live in a more fecund environment. A large portion of our pollution is unnecessary and tied to whatever you call this global economic system / social paradigm we’ve backed ourselves into. It’s only either or between forest and urban blight because we’ve made it so

  • Grayox@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Reminds me of my thoughts after reading “Why Buddhism is True” by Robert Wright. If you haven’t read it before I highly recommend it.

  • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I mean there are multiple proposed filters.

    Suppose yours is correct. What is this humanity’s nature you speak of?

    Bravery? Foolishness? Wisdom? Violence? Greed?

    What what of those attributes haven’t we already overcome time and again?

    It’s much more probable that everyone out there is attentively listening to signals instead of radically changing their own mental processes. Or not