60 million years ago, an asteroid hit the planet. Hard. Winter for three years. That was not a balanced ecosystem. Diversity was not left in its wake. There was a bit of topsoil erosion in places, you might even venture to say.
-You might even say it was the result of chance and not direct human action.
-And that it killed every species that was not capable of adapting.
I like the "tough guy Taoist" label on a superficial level, but unfortunately, it just proves that people here are not capable of reading correctly. Balance is opposite the actual message. I am saying that the earth does not do balances. It has been an imbalanced system from the beginning, careening from this state to that state with little equilibrium.
Human society is not the planet Earth, resource distribution is not the planet Earth, damage to the ecosystem is a part of the Earth, we live on the Earth, are dependent on it:
- Fuck up the only planet we live on, we screw ourselves over.
I realize that, compared to the great souls on this board, I am a monster who enjoys death. This is obvious, because whereas I continue to live out the small life that is allotted me, you aware people have taken the big plunge and posted your concern on an internet message board, proving that this time you're really serious. Among the many solutions proposed here, all equally valid and heartlessly ignored in a world driven to ruin by industry and lobbyists, are the extremely effective "educate everyone" and "create a virus" proposals.
Your sarcasm aside, 'educate everyone' has indeed proven to be effective, ignorance does do nothing but harm the mind and guide actions into stupidity.
Your solution is to sit by with our heads buried in the sand, wait for agriculture to fail and allow populations to starve to death [but of their own voluntary logarithmic choice of course].
The fact of the matter is, no solution here has gone past hand-waving arguments that aren't really feasible
- Stop decadent & wasteful living.
- Reduce family sizes through voluntary measures. The only governments that could feasibly introduce a one child policy do not need to, China, Indonesia and India possibly aside.
- Education would be cheaper and more beneficial to the individual and the whole in any case.
Everyone here is unaccountably pleased at himself merely for being in a shared state of panic and depression over a crisis the likes of which the earth has rebounded from before, and much worse in addition.
What is there to be pleased of? We are all faceless, there is no satisfaction to receive. I type this with calm will and good intentions, mainly because it is a slow progress to certain doom. All can be mitigated still.
If you were pining for the human race in particular, I could at least understand that, since life will grow harder for us in the future, but most of the lament is couched in terms of ...
heartless bastard who doesn't care for the biological richness of the planet
But that said, I'm sure Earth would truly like it.
Personally I am arguing for the survival of the human race in decent comfort. Biodiversity is nice and all and should not needlessly be sacrificed, but I would not think longer for a second in sacrificing another species for our own survival. But of course, therein lies the problem: There are very few species or ecosystems that we can afford to part with that we have not already done so with. Maybe Siberia. But there's not many where we are not reliant on. All the problems I listed were specific in that if they were ecological problems, they were caused by humans and their impact will strike humans dearly.
... where action is to be done on behalf of biological richness and the desires of the earth itself. Did I mention that an asteroid hit the earth? Will again, too.
The part where everything sucked is rather significant too.
Author
Topic: The problem of our success: Overpopulation (Read 5797 times)