Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by WheelsAtLarge on Sunday May 05, 2019 @10:33PM
(#19836404)
The same instincts that have given us the world we have now will in time destroy the world we live in.
The accumulation of resources, survival at any cost, the need to find a mate and reproduce without regard to the overall population and ultimately the intelligence to do it above any other species is what ultimately will cause the extinction of the human race unless we are able to overcome our instincts and change our ways.
The irony is that we are suppose to be the smartest species to ever inhabit the earth.
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by le-mark on Sunday May 05, 2019 @10:47PM
(#19836452)
Now, this thought — we’re killing off the only life we know anywhere in the universe — is impossible to hold. It’s literally quite impossible to process for, I’d say, 99% of people on the planet. You can try, but you’ll fail. What does that make us? Murderers? Genocidaires? Fools? You see what I mean. Now you’re either in denial, despair, frustration, or rage — but what you haven’t done is simply hold the thought, and see what it means.
I've been waiting for this view point to become more prominent. In my view the logical conclusion is; from a moral perspective the only thing we can do is vacate this planet and let evolution continue free of our influence. Who can know what other intelligence may evolve in our absence?
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by mimixco on Sunday May 05, 2019 @11:21PM
(#19836596)
This is a quasi-religious viewpoint that suggests plants and animals are superior to humans so we should get out of their way. The opposite view, that the planet is here for us can also be used to come around to taking better care of this place we live.
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by iamwil on Sunday May 05, 2019 @10:52PM
(#19836477)
So let's say we can convince people to do this. How would it work? What's the mechanic? Would it be that just x% of profits go into maintaining nature, just as some corporations set aside x% of their profits for charity?
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by dpflan on Sunday May 05, 2019 @10:48PM
(#19836462)
The crux of the matter: “Life itself dying off because we are trying to use 18th century economics — built for the industrial age — to solve 21st century problems.”
Evolution of economic systems: what comes after capitalism?
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by mimixco on Sunday May 05, 2019 @11:25PM
(#19836611)
There is nothing "after" capitalism which hasn't already been tried with disastrous consequences (read: death, starvation, and violence).
Either you own your body, your land, your labor, and your money -- or the state owns them for you. What makes the state a good determiner of what's best for humanity? It doesn't have that great a track record.
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by mimixco on Sunday May 05, 2019 @11:17PM
(#19836579)
I totally get the ecological argument but how would changing to a socialist system (which is what we're talking about here without saying the word) fix it?
The planet's woes are caused by bad human behavior. There's no rule that says one must be inherently bad in order to have a capitalist business, just like there's no rule that would make a socialist economy naturally non-polluting. Governments and militaries are terrible polluters and they don't have a profit motive.
People are people and collectivism won't change that. Hitler, too, wanted the "New Man." It's dangerous to suggest that letting others decide for us (statism) would be capable of bringing that about.
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by marccarre on Sunday May 05, 2019 @11:50PM
(#19836717)
I don't understand this article as being about changing to a socialist system. AFAIU, it is about better taking Life & Nature into account in our current economic system & models. We do to some extent, but they are massively undervalued, and economy & ecology aren't current aligned (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion in first place), hence our current economy is unsustainable.
I think of it as finding the "fair price" for having X many trees, X many wild animals, pure air, pure water, etc. on our planet and consuming some to produce goods, food, etc. ; i.e. a fairer price between the immediate gain, and the longer term consequences. A metaphor: what's the "fair price" for the "goose that laid the golden eggs" and the profit/loss for killing it?
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by mimixco on Monday May 06, 2019 @02:45PM
(#19842486)
If the price is determined by anything other than the market, that's socialism/collectivism/statism.
The idea that someone could do a better job of pricing than the market (with whatever definition of "better" appeals to you) has been disproved again and again. A person doesn't become an expert in what's "better" just because they work for the government. Thinking that it would amounts to worship of the state as an entity.
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by ciconia on Sunday May 05, 2019 @11:05PM
(#19836536)
I think the jury is still out as to who will win this terrible war of Man Against Nature. One thing is sure though: if Man does win, and Nature becomes completely subjugated, then life is simply not worth living...
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by Gys on Sunday May 05, 2019 @11:44PM
(#19836695)
For an incredible number of ppl (seems to me) the idea of spending all their time in a mall-like environment, spending money (credits?) on things they not need, eating and drinking fancy looking ‘artificial’ (overly processed, no relation to anything natural) food is the ultimate goal.
Re:We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in th...
by piano-tamperer on Sunday May 05, 2019 @11:00PM
(#19836518)
Genocide seems a likelier solution than pretending you can invent a 'non-capitalist' economic solution that somehow supports 7 billion plus people without causing massive ecological damage.
The accumulation of resources, survival at any cost, the need to find a mate and reproduce without regard to the overall population and ultimately the intelligence to do it above any other species is what ultimately will cause the extinction of the human race unless we are able to overcome our instincts and change our ways.
The irony is that we are suppose to be the smartest species to ever inhabit the earth.
I've been waiting for this view point to become more prominent. In my view the logical conclusion is; from a moral perspective the only thing we can do is vacate this planet and let evolution continue free of our influence. Who can know what other intelligence may evolve in our absence?
Or maybe I read too much Andre Norton as a lad?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/462481.Breed_to_Come
Or something else altogether?
Evolution of economic systems: what comes after capitalism?
Either you own your body, your land, your labor, and your money -- or the state owns them for you. What makes the state a good determiner of what's best for humanity? It doesn't have that great a track record.
The planet's woes are caused by bad human behavior. There's no rule that says one must be inherently bad in order to have a capitalist business, just like there's no rule that would make a socialist economy naturally non-polluting. Governments and militaries are terrible polluters and they don't have a profit motive.
People are people and collectivism won't change that. Hitler, too, wanted the "New Man." It's dangerous to suggest that letting others decide for us (statism) would be capable of bringing that about.
I think of it as finding the "fair price" for having X many trees, X many wild animals, pure air, pure water, etc. on our planet and consuming some to produce goods, food, etc. ; i.e. a fairer price between the immediate gain, and the longer term consequences. A metaphor: what's the "fair price" for the "goose that laid the golden eggs" and the profit/loss for killing it?
The idea that someone could do a better job of pricing than the market (with whatever definition of "better" appeals to you) has been disproved again and again. A person doesn't become an expert in what's "better" just because they work for the government. Thinking that it would amounts to worship of the state as an entity.
‘Its life Jim, but not as we know it’ ;-)