. . . the planet and life itself will survive . . .
How are you defining “life itself”?
. . . and probably even be better off without humans.
I’d say that goes without saying.
Humans are causing the next extinction event and afterwards life will just start fresh again.
Start “fresh”? Like with single-celled organisms? Maybe a billion years later we’ll be back eating sandwiches? Okay, so what process created sustainable environments again? Humans left some sort-of-permanent damage. Nuclear waste, PFAS, etc. Sure a good ol’ pole shift and a few asteroid impacts and we’re back in business.
So no, saving the planet is not the goal. Saving humanity and most of all other current life is. And if that’s what you want to accomplish then that’s what you should talk about, specifically.
God this is fucking exhausting. The prevention of unmitigated and prolonged suffering by all sentient life is the goal, YES. Kudos to the possibly viable future space rock and the wisdom to acknowledge our utter inability to protect one single planet from ourselves is laughably inadequate and - CLEARLY - irrelevant.
IMO, it is a distinction that is worthwhile. The universe is not anthropocentric. It doesn’t give two shits about humanity (it’s not, to our knowledge even sentient). Humanity is completely insignificant to nearly anything but humans. To me, it puts into perspective that noone and nothing in this indifferent universe is coming to save us from ourselves. It’s up to us.
Life will continue without us, just like it did before us. If the entirety of the world’s nuclear arsenals are used, there’s a good chance that microbes like Deinococus radiodurans will survive to evolve into new forms of complex life. The human species is far more fragile than the planet.
What distinction, pointing out that the existing astronomical and mineralogical structures will withstand even our worst impulses? Or changing “Saving the planet” to “slowing our inevitable dissolution due to corrupt thinking and possibly saving some ducks, too”?
The distinction is already very well known - as we can see, people drive for hundreds of miles so they can hop out and tell us the actual physical structure of Earth will remain, most likely. It’s the insistence on focusing on that distinction which slows our ability to talk about the core causes for this climate disaster. And it sounds a lot like the previous 100 years of:
there’s plenty of nature
we can’t live like savages, we must pollute to make money
what if we add lead to it and spray it all over everything and everyone? No knocks! Profit!
What the heck is an ozone layer
oh you’re a tree hugger huh
there’s no proof its caused by humans
there are always periods of heating and cooling
this is a Chinese hoax
well you drink water so you’re part of the problem
i’ll never give up eating meat, what are you, gay?
It’s too expensive to not destroy the environment
oil prices are the key to liberty and freedom
the future of clean energy is a nightmare because we’ll have to enslave humanity to extract rare minerals from protected wildlife areas to build large batteries
it’s fine, the earth will survive. Sure we’ll die and everything we commonly consider animal life will be killed but - ya gotta go sometime
Now you’re just lobbing together people who want to distinguish what exactly it is that needs saving with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers. Seems to me you just like boxes, really big boxes, in which to put in all the thing you dislike/disagree with or whatever.
You don’t care that I disagree with almost everything on your list except for 2 things that I think are really important to be specific about.
“Saving the planet”, which I’ve explained
”You drink water, so you’re part of the problem”, which is kind of true if you extrapolate and include it in your decision on if to have children.
Be my guest, I don’t care enough to continue this conversation beyond this point with a hammer that’s just looking for nails.
My whole complaint is that “Saving the planet” is intended to be a simple way to bring up the many, many things humans need to change to reverse our destructive path. They’re all implied in that.
By arguing a million more specific points instead (“well the rocks will still be here”, “actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”) is weakening the purpose of using that phrase. If I wanted to promote water conservation, I wouldn’t say “Let’s save the planet”, I’d say “let’s conserve water”.
The OP meme is about just that - showing the absurdity of arguing a single aspect of planetary destruction in order to - ?? In order to do what - Promote geological sciences? Dismiss environmental concerns? (This is my main gripe, fwiw.) Be cool and aloof? Scoring internet hot take points?
It’s all a ridiculous exercise in - well, exactly what we see here: Many comments pointing out obvious - and therefore pointless - exceptions to our species’ unconscionable destruction of the only habitat anyone has ever known. It’s just exhausting.
“actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”
If one is honest and looks at the data, personal scale water consumption is nearly meaningless.
Back to the main point though, I do not intend at all to brush off the destruction of habitats capable of supporting complex life but to be clear about the stakes. The world will continue to exist without us - we’re not that special. If we don’t work to stop a handful of sociopaths from rendering the world incapable of supporting human life, we’re screwed.
Can you be more specific about “the world” and “continuing to exist” because in all of these comments it seems like people think it’s easily going to return to some mythical Edenic paradise, just give it a few hundred years, and - no.
Being more specific, I basically mean object permanence. It won’t cease to exist without humans. Even that mythical Edenic paradise is an anthropocentric concept. Nothing like that existed for the majority of the earth’s history, nor did anything like it exist in most regions of the planet. Most known life is optimized for environments that are not particularly human-safe.
Nowhere do I suggest any of those things. In fact, opting out of anthropocentricism is breaking with views held throughout much of human history and used as an excuse to do nothing.
How are you defining “life itself”?
I’d say that goes without saying.
Start “fresh”? Like with single-celled organisms? Maybe a billion years later we’ll be back eating sandwiches? Okay, so what process created sustainable environments again? Humans left some sort-of-permanent damage. Nuclear waste, PFAS, etc. Sure a good ol’ pole shift and a few asteroid impacts and we’re back in business.
God this is fucking exhausting. The prevention of unmitigated and prolonged suffering by all sentient life is the goal, YES. Kudos to the possibly viable future space rock and the wisdom to acknowledge our utter inability to protect one single planet from ourselves is laughably inadequate and - CLEARLY - irrelevant.
IMO, it is a distinction that is worthwhile. The universe is not anthropocentric. It doesn’t give two shits about humanity (it’s not, to our knowledge even sentient). Humanity is completely insignificant to nearly anything but humans. To me, it puts into perspective that noone and nothing in this indifferent universe is coming to save us from ourselves. It’s up to us.
Life will continue without us, just like it did before us. If the entirety of the world’s nuclear arsenals are used, there’s a good chance that microbes like Deinococus radiodurans will survive to evolve into new forms of complex life. The human species is far more fragile than the planet.
What distinction, pointing out that the existing astronomical and mineralogical structures will withstand even our worst impulses? Or changing “Saving the planet” to “slowing our inevitable dissolution due to corrupt thinking and possibly saving some ducks, too”?
The distinction is already very well known - as we can see, people drive for hundreds of miles so they can hop out and tell us the actual physical structure of Earth will remain, most likely. It’s the insistence on focusing on that distinction which slows our ability to talk about the core causes for this climate disaster. And it sounds a lot like the previous 100 years of:
Now you’re just lobbing together people who want to distinguish what exactly it is that needs saving with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers. Seems to me you just like boxes, really big boxes, in which to put in all the thing you dislike/disagree with or whatever.
You don’t care that I disagree with almost everything on your list except for 2 things that I think are really important to be specific about.
Be my guest, I don’t care enough to continue this conversation beyond this point with a hammer that’s just looking for nails.
My whole complaint is that “Saving the planet” is intended to be a simple way to bring up the many, many things humans need to change to reverse our destructive path. They’re all implied in that.
By arguing a million more specific points instead (“well the rocks will still be here”, “actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”) is weakening the purpose of using that phrase. If I wanted to promote water conservation, I wouldn’t say “Let’s save the planet”, I’d say “let’s conserve water”.
The OP meme is about just that - showing the absurdity of arguing a single aspect of planetary destruction in order to - ?? In order to do what - Promote geological sciences? Dismiss environmental concerns? (This is my main gripe, fwiw.) Be cool and aloof? Scoring internet hot take points?
It’s all a ridiculous exercise in - well, exactly what we see here: Many comments pointing out obvious - and therefore pointless - exceptions to our species’ unconscionable destruction of the only habitat anyone has ever known. It’s just exhausting.
If one is honest and looks at the data, personal scale water consumption is nearly meaningless.
Back to the main point though, I do not intend at all to brush off the destruction of habitats capable of supporting complex life but to be clear about the stakes. The world will continue to exist without us - we’re not that special. If we don’t work to stop a handful of sociopaths from rendering the world incapable of supporting human life, we’re screwed.
Can you be more specific about “the world” and “continuing to exist” because in all of these comments it seems like people think it’s easily going to return to some mythical Edenic paradise, just give it a few hundred years, and - no.
Being more specific, I basically mean object permanence. It won’t cease to exist without humans. Even that mythical Edenic paradise is an anthropocentric concept. Nothing like that existed for the majority of the earth’s history, nor did anything like it exist in most regions of the planet. Most known life is optimized for environments that are not particularly human-safe.
I thought evidence existed that most of the earth was tropical, for lack of a better word, in . . dinosaur . . . times?
Hey mon, that sounds irie for I an I. Eh, hold the dinosaurs.
Nowhere do I suggest any of those things. In fact, opting out of anthropocentricism is breaking with views held throughout much of human history and used as an excuse to do nothing.
Yeah, this is also what I usually mean when I say “Earth will be fine”.