"In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
post
Great, now the octopuses colonised the land and strangled the climate with their stupid arms! Well done!
Yeah but that fish was trying to walk to get away from all the greater bullshit in the sea. Land mode is like easy mode compared to sea mode.
it only works if he travels back to future, if he killed it he wouldve created a separate timeline.
Life is not the problem here, we are
Speak for yourself. I'm OK.
That's the problem with this notion, isn't it? That idea that humans are no good and that we shouldn't exist. In the extreme you get movements like antinatalism that have given up all hope for humanity and take on a downright anti-human stance. I happen to think that's an unhealthy way of seeing things.
I love humanity for what it can be, but at the moment it's absolutely a problem for the world as a whole. You can love something and still understand that it's currently a problem, and needs to improve in order to be healthy.
The issue is semantic, but also important: our present actions are deeply problematic to the planet; however, are not imbued with the inherent trait of being problems to this planet.
To say “we are the problem” implies that the solution is for us to go away. To say “we are being problematic” would imply that the solution is to change our actions.
Being OK is worth taking seriously, and it does not settle the question. The antinatalist claim is not that everyone is miserable. It is that a life can go badly in ways the person who is created had no chance to decline, and that being all right yourself is not evidence about which risk another person drew. Nor is the position anti-human. It comes from the opposite direction: the concern is for the being who would have to navigate a world that is not reliably kind, and it is expressed by declining to put someone there, not by despising the ones already here. A view that had given up on humanity would want it gone. This one wants the suffering already present addressed, and asks that no more be added as collateral to a bet nobody agreed to.
That's a well-written argument but I maintain that antinatalism is a form of antihumanism since it leads to the extinction of the human race. It is steeped in pessimism about people's capability to mitigate their own suffering.
Declining to bet on behalf of your progeny also leaves them bereft of the chance to live a fulfilled life. I will 100% support everyone's individual decision to remain child-free but antinatalism isn't that.
And I'd much rather support euthanasia (the literal kind, not the crime committed e.g. by the Nazis) or suicide for those who make an autonomous decision against life. But rejecting life ab initio (or rather a priori) seems like the worst position in this debate to me.
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Hank Green’s video about how fish transitioned onto land is one of the most fascinating things I’ve encountered in years.
I would not have expected this but more oxygen is available in the air than in water. I don’t know why I thought otherwise. Just seems like water is denser and a lot of our o2 comes from marine plants anyway…
But yeah it’s kind of inevitable. There’s more energy here.
This is stupid. It's not walking or breathing air that has fucked us.
It's empowering greedy shitstains to control anything close to modern tech that has fucked us.
As they say, “baby steps.”
Greedy shitstains, as you called them, having been doing this kind of thing for all of recorded history. I'd bet any amount of money that they were doing it before we knew how to write it down too. Modern technology has very little to do with it.
Yep. "Knights were the assholes of the middle ages" is what I tell the kids. Those shiny riders killed, tortured, raped and stole, and that's how they and their bosses became "nobles".
They became and are assholes, it's simple as that.
Maybe should modify "modern tech" to everything downstream of scalable agriculture
I feel so bad. Why didn't they at least scoop the fish up and put them back in the water?

all 37 comments