Some us know that a climate catastrophe is upon us and the wars that are being fomented are speeding it up. More people every day know that we are being fed lies. We know that billionaires are empty sacks of skin. Now we have to work together to fight against all that is causing us harm.
Yes. Which is why the collapse that is surely imminent needs to come by some other means than nukes. My vote is for pandemic, since that could spare maybe everyone but humans--or via sheer inability of the overcomplex economic system to keep functioning. Any major collapse will involve massive human death, but the best case scenario is that the collapse come as soon as possible (so that there isn't a ninth billion of humans to suffer, and so that the accelerating damage is stopped sooner) but also gradual, so that survivors can adapt, figure out how to survive by farming, hunting and gathering, and by aggregating into tribes. Ideally the tribes act in solidarity with each other rather than competition--if that isn't too much to hope for. Here's what definitely IS too much to hope for--that we change all our policies such that we transition to a way of life that's sustainable, eliminating war and capitalism while maintaining a "modern" way of life It would require massive and immediate change in every realm, and it would be against the economic interests of sociopathic billionaires, who are only aware of economic interest.
hating human beings IS hating nature. we are part of nature and nature is part of us. a massive plague upon humanity will not fix the problem. reading Robin Wall Kimmerer's book Braiding Sweetgrass changed my view and I hope you'll give it a chance
I don't hate human beings--I'm saying some kind of collapse is inevitable because the way we're living in radically unsustainable, and given the power of corporations and sociopaths, I think a smooth transition, via policy change, to a better, more peaceful, sustainable future without billions of premature human deaths is about as likely as Jesus coming to save us. So if a massive collapse is inevitable, then the least bad scenario is economic unraveling; next least bad is pandemic since likely some humans would survive and most likely it would have little impact on (most) other species. Environmental unraveling would be worst, except for nuclear conflagration which could wipe out all multicellular life and leave the planet radioactive for a long time.
As for Kimmerer's Braiding Sweetgrass, it influenced me too, and I think everyone should read it!
Nature is an interlinked, synergistic system of billions of components / organisms which act together and individually to develop and maintain a sustainable ecology.
Humans don't co-operate in that endeavour but rather, humans destroy sustainable ecologies. We might have been part of nature 20 or 30 thousand years ago, but we are no longer.
it's worth noting here that Neanderthals, with a larger brain than Homo Sapiens Sapiens, survived nearly 200,000 years without destroying the environment that sustained them.
Re: paragraph 3 it’s got nothing to do with our brain size.
Paragraph 3: I think it’s a mistake to lump all actions taken by humans and their institutions into one big verb and label it “humans destroy sustainable ecologies”. Capitalist logic destroys nature, including humans, for profit. The incentive is built into the system. People like us are probably doing all we can to sustain and rejuvenate nature. When you put us all in the same bucket it flattens and obscures the system responsible and the power dynamics that keep it in place. If the goal is to secure a future livable planet we must transition to a political economic system that prioritizes well-being over profit. That’s not capitalism.
I fully realise that some people understand our current situation and are attempting to change it, but when taking the macro view of an entire species as a collective whole, a broad brush is required. To assess the actions every individual member of H. Sapiens Sapiens would require typing 8.2 billion paragraphs, which I can't imagine anybody actually reading.
But modern humans began agriculture 14.5K ybp and in doing so, stepped outside of that synergistic system and began deliberately changing their environment.
As for the Neanderthal brain, there's no way of knowing what particular function that extra brain mass might have performed, but in evolution genetic changes only persist in a species if they are adaptive - that is they improve the chances of the species' survival. The logic of Natural Selection would suggest that, if the larger brain played no part in that survival, and you have to admit 200,000 yrs is a pretty good innings, then that adaptation would not have persisted.
But I definitely agree with you Lizzy that Capitalism, which I hold to be an unfortunate side effect of the agricultural revolution ( collateral damage if you will ) is now the main driver of our stampede towards annihilation.
It's not just ocean temps Patrick, it's also Ph levels and as they drop, the acidity of the oceans makes it harder for crustaceans to survive. Their calcium carbonate shells dissolve. And that is happening now.
For reference: Elizabeth Kolbert, 'Field Notes From A Catastrophe', and / or 'The Sixth Extinction'
But yeah, nuclear war would result in higher levels of radiation in the oceans, from fallout, nuclear weapon detonating underwater, nuclear powered vessel being destroyed or Fukushima?
That combined with higher temps and lower Ph would be a rerun of the End Permian Extinction.
Some us know that a climate catastrophe is upon us and the wars that are being fomented are speeding it up. More people every day know that we are being fed lies. We know that billionaires are empty sacks of skin. Now we have to work together to fight against all that is causing us harm.
Yes Susan, and I think that while climate change might allow some species to survive, nuclear war will end just about all life on Earth.
Yes. Which is why the collapse that is surely imminent needs to come by some other means than nukes. My vote is for pandemic, since that could spare maybe everyone but humans--or via sheer inability of the overcomplex economic system to keep functioning. Any major collapse will involve massive human death, but the best case scenario is that the collapse come as soon as possible (so that there isn't a ninth billion of humans to suffer, and so that the accelerating damage is stopped sooner) but also gradual, so that survivors can adapt, figure out how to survive by farming, hunting and gathering, and by aggregating into tribes. Ideally the tribes act in solidarity with each other rather than competition--if that isn't too much to hope for. Here's what definitely IS too much to hope for--that we change all our policies such that we transition to a way of life that's sustainable, eliminating war and capitalism while maintaining a "modern" way of life It would require massive and immediate change in every realm, and it would be against the economic interests of sociopathic billionaires, who are only aware of economic interest.
hating human beings IS hating nature. we are part of nature and nature is part of us. a massive plague upon humanity will not fix the problem. reading Robin Wall Kimmerer's book Braiding Sweetgrass changed my view and I hope you'll give it a chance
I don't hate human beings--I'm saying some kind of collapse is inevitable because the way we're living in radically unsustainable, and given the power of corporations and sociopaths, I think a smooth transition, via policy change, to a better, more peaceful, sustainable future without billions of premature human deaths is about as likely as Jesus coming to save us. So if a massive collapse is inevitable, then the least bad scenario is economic unraveling; next least bad is pandemic since likely some humans would survive and most likely it would have little impact on (most) other species. Environmental unraveling would be worst, except for nuclear conflagration which could wipe out all multicellular life and leave the planet radioactive for a long time.
As for Kimmerer's Braiding Sweetgrass, it influenced me too, and I think everyone should read it!
Nature is an interlinked, synergistic system of billions of components / organisms which act together and individually to develop and maintain a sustainable ecology.
Humans don't co-operate in that endeavour but rather, humans destroy sustainable ecologies. We might have been part of nature 20 or 30 thousand years ago, but we are no longer.
it's worth noting here that Neanderthals, with a larger brain than Homo Sapiens Sapiens, survived nearly 200,000 years without destroying the environment that sustained them.
good description of nature in paragraph 1.
Re: paragraph 3 it’s got nothing to do with our brain size.
Paragraph 3: I think it’s a mistake to lump all actions taken by humans and their institutions into one big verb and label it “humans destroy sustainable ecologies”. Capitalist logic destroys nature, including humans, for profit. The incentive is built into the system. People like us are probably doing all we can to sustain and rejuvenate nature. When you put us all in the same bucket it flattens and obscures the system responsible and the power dynamics that keep it in place. If the goal is to secure a future livable planet we must transition to a political economic system that prioritizes well-being over profit. That’s not capitalism.
I fully realise that some people understand our current situation and are attempting to change it, but when taking the macro view of an entire species as a collective whole, a broad brush is required. To assess the actions every individual member of H. Sapiens Sapiens would require typing 8.2 billion paragraphs, which I can't imagine anybody actually reading.
But modern humans began agriculture 14.5K ybp and in doing so, stepped outside of that synergistic system and began deliberately changing their environment.
As for the Neanderthal brain, there's no way of knowing what particular function that extra brain mass might have performed, but in evolution genetic changes only persist in a species if they are adaptive - that is they improve the chances of the species' survival. The logic of Natural Selection would suggest that, if the larger brain played no part in that survival, and you have to admit 200,000 yrs is a pretty good innings, then that adaptation would not have persisted.
But I definitely agree with you Lizzy that Capitalism, which I hold to be an unfortunate side effect of the agricultural revolution ( collateral damage if you will ) is now the main driver of our stampede towards annihilation.
Life would survive in the oceans after nuclear war. But boil those oceans and everything dies.
It's not just ocean temps Patrick, it's also Ph levels and as they drop, the acidity of the oceans makes it harder for crustaceans to survive. Their calcium carbonate shells dissolve. And that is happening now.
For reference: Elizabeth Kolbert, 'Field Notes From A Catastrophe', and / or 'The Sixth Extinction'
But yeah, nuclear war would result in higher levels of radiation in the oceans, from fallout, nuclear weapon detonating underwater, nuclear powered vessel being destroyed or Fukushima?
That combined with higher temps and lower Ph would be a rerun of the End Permian Extinction.