Nukefest 2040

I don't thunk - you said couple of hundred years - implying a pretty soon and sudden extinction. I doubt it will be that soon or sudden. Hence my use of ragnarok vs armageddon.Sure, but are we dodos or coelacanths?By all means matey. Humanity, for all it's ugliness, is capable of feats of cooperation and invention that put all other known animals to shame, frankly. Yes we kill each other in droves, but we also succour one another in droves too, and work out compromises to cope with situational changes.

You're welcome to your desires, but it sounds way too emo for me. "I hate humans so much that I wish we'll soon be gone without trace." I think humans are as neat as they are screwy really - we do a lot of relatively fascinating stuff. I doubt existence will be ennobled by our passing. To be realistic - it's a cosmic irrelevence whether or not we last longer than any other species, so why wish for us not to? Beyond a bit of "look at me I'm gazing into the abyss!" - what is there to your desire for us to be wiped from the stage with no sign of our passing?

I mean I'm neutral myself - I'd like to think we could do something constructive to better our chances for seeing out the upcoming changes with minimal suffering though I doubt we can rescue our civilisation - which is why I despair of your attitude a bit, because if people are just going to go "there's no point, humanity is loathesome, doesn't matter, probably kill itself soon" then getting people to act responsibly in regards to damage limitation will be that much harder.

Complete misrepresentation of my stated position. You must have overlooked the numerous total doomsday scenarios I openly acknowledged in my post. I'll repeat them for you:

1) "In the future (the Earth will) face the sun going nova, and collision with Andromeda - we're a piffling irritation in comparison!"

2) "Until something usurps us from our ecological niche, such as a more successful sapient tool-maker, or a truely catastrophic event like a big asteroid strike, we'll probably hang on in some sort of humbled state in various enclaves, and maybe even experience a renaissance."

3) "humanity will likely not face extinction because of it's own behaviour."

4) "There will be no armageddon unless nature takes a very unexpected turn."

So I'm fully cognisant of the inevitability of human extinction (as all organisms will one day go the way of the dodo) - I just don't accept that it's going to happen soon as a result of our own behaviour. What will occur is a die-off of billions - I'm pretty sure - because in all other animals that suffer exponential growths that's what occurs.

Most species die because of environmental changes - but we've mastered living in a huge variety of environments and it's unlikely that a catastrophe short of a massive asteroid will turn the surface of the entire planet into a environment we simply cannot cope with.

We can minimise this - but only if we give up the armageddon scenarios of the secular ("we're all going to die because humans are polluting and warlike - so in the meantime enjoy life to the full") or religious ("Jesus will soon return and sort it out - so in the meantime enjoy life to the full") types.

Because telling ourselves versions of these "we've buggered it all up so there's no point trying to fix it" myths (and they are myths) is easier than learning to live humbly and resourcefully and make sacrifices such as going without kids, or using only public transport, which might minimise the suffering if we could be bothered.

Capiche, matey?

I never stated a myth of this sort, nor did I imply it in any of my text. In fact, there's nothing in your post that is contradictory to what I've typed. What seems to have happened here is that you have angst against some particular mindset (seemingly some sort of doomsday/armageddon fanatic - both of which I never spoke of, mind you) and you thought you saw remnants of this particular mindset in my posting; I'm thinking it's when you read, "a couple hundred years". Is this correct?

Whatever the reason, you seem to be really worked up over my postings, and have made points completely irrelevant to anything I've spoken of. I believe this is some sort of misunderstanding.

Sorry to have upset you,

Zeth

EDIT: Ah, after going over your post a third time, I think I've narrowed down what upset you so greatly. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the root?



If so, no, I don't consider myself a humanitarian, nor do I really care about continuing our existence with "damage limitation" in mind. But I also don't go, "there's no point", as I don't really care either way. That is, I don't think it matters if this species lives on or dies, and I'm not an idealist clinging to any "responsibilities". Sometimes I do throw out cynical comments like the "couple hundred years" one, but it's really more of a joke than anything. This isn't "emo", I do want to live, and I love life, but I frankly don't care about anything humanitarian-like (actually, this isn't completely true). I'll enjoy what I enjoy and then I'll die. If you think I'm a "bad" person because of this, that's perfectly understandable. I can see where you're coming from.

Beyond a managable degree of frustration at unproductive defeatism (more a feature of imnotrussian's missives than your own) and a failure to communicate I'm perfectly chipper. If you read my last post you will find that it was the couple of hundred years comment I referred to, and that I can't see any point in desiring to expunge all trace of human beings.

If I have come across as somewhat too strong it's because I think the pervasiveness of doomsday thinking is so entrenched - to the extent that otherwise reasonable fellows such as jdgweed and yourself will seem to advocate them - that a sledgehammer is required in preference to the scalpel.

What do you feel I've accepted defeat for? I'd be more than happy to clarify anything you feel I've just run away from without explanation (This wasn't sarcastic, and I understand you said it's more of a feature of imnotrussian's comments than my own, but it still seems there may be some things you feel I'm being a defeatist about.)



Besides the "couple hundred years" comment, I don't really know why you're thinking I'm advocating some sort of doomsday-like destruction of mankind. I'm cynical at times, but as noted in the edit in my last post, I don't really care either way. It's just something... 'interesting' to think about. Just like most fantastical stories or thoughts are. Besides what inductive arguments I can muster for potential extermination of mankind, I really don't know what is going to happen. No one does, of course.

This seems to be an error on my end. I believe I miscommunicated. I apologize for this.

hi dave-
i thanked both jg and zetherin for their posts which i found light-hearted and laid back. it is similar to the way i think-we can only do our best, and whatever happens after that, so beit. it would be better to find the earth carried no trace of us if we come to an end as a result of our own stupidity and irresponsibility. it would be sad to think the world would be incapable of supporting life because we totally ruined it.

most of the time i am optimistic that we are evolving towards a higher and better organized species than we were. throughout history i recognize the awesome accomplishments of some people in all areas of life, i cheer on the underdog, but i can never be proud of humanity. it is only a part of the picture, which also must include the reprehensible levels that we have sunken to and atrocities we have committed. it is a balance of two ends of the spectrum of human nature, and i dont know that they can ever become mostly one or the other-maybe there will always have to be a balance of opposing forces or everything would come to a standstill.

but i dont really see anything special or distinctive in the human species, it just happens to be the one i understand the best and can relate to. if we reach the point where we actually eradicate ourselves through war or some unthinkable biological error, i think life will go on. if not human life, some other kind-if not here, somewhere else. and i find it hard to believe that any one species can actually bring about the destruction of an entire planet-i would think it can make the necessary adjustment by eliminating whatever species is not co-operating, clean up the mess, and introduce some alternatives to fill in the gaps.

but there are plenty of times when i just think to myself when the end comes, good riddance. just a mood i guess, depending on how the rest of the day is going.

Honestly there's no need, I suspect there's a bit of mutual "oh my God Dave/Zetherin's being really serious" going on here - when we're probably just similarly resigned to the inevitable and trying to have fun with a bit of polemic in the meantime.

---------- Post added 07-16-2009 at 01:49 PM ----------

I think there's a subtle but important difference between acknowledging our impotence in the face of fate and the dark sides of life and how difficult we are making things for future generations - which can be life affirming, helpful and honest - and declaring (by no more than fiat) that the end is nigh and that pleasurable things are irrelevent in comparison to life's less pleasant aspects, which seemed to be a theme of this thread.

Honestly, I'm not affronted by it - I just thought I'd mount a vigorous defence for the likelihood that even in the face of nuclear proliferation and worst case environmental scenarios, the claim that "every single one of us is going to die" isn't realistic and, for someone who would like to see a bit more damage control initiated "off message" (so to speak).

But I wasn't saying so in order to browbeat anyone - I just thought it was a good topic of debate.

Not Russian:
I really don't have time to make a character, just thought the OP could set up a good scene.