Subject: Links, pleeeaase?
Author:
Posted on: 2023-01-03 01:25:29 UTC
Unless you just want my opinion on the hypothetical. I’ll give that, but I certainly think that the idea of humanity going extinct in 100 years in far from “proven”.
—Ls needs autocorrect to remind him that proven only has one o
As humanity is proven to go extinct within this century, what are your thoughts on this? Do you think this is a good or bad thing?
Science is always changing, and long-term predictions don't necessarily account for shifts in human behavior that occur after the prediction was originally made. I do think things could be better, but I don't necessarily think we'll be done by the end of this century; People are becoming a lot more savvy to climate issues, and solutions are being developed (but rarely reported on because non-doomist news rarely gets clicks). I forgot where exactly, but in some Nordic country, they've opened/are about to open tested-and-approved CO2 removal plants.
Also, if there's one thing I severely, truly dislike, is the "humans are the real virus" rhetoric; That's a manufactured ideology that's purpose is to send listeners into a pessimistic hate-spiral that keeps them from realizing that the actual issue are giant corporations and factories that refuse to adopt greener policies or use renewable/lower impact energy or machinery in the name of saving money that realistically, they don't need to keep saving. Similar is the "it's up to individuals to save the environment" rhetoric; Yes, we need to do more and rally the troops so to speak, but uh... We're not the ones with the giant factories or means of enacting pollutive practices on a gigantic scale. Companies gotta do their part.
My advice to you is to quit dwelling on some microbiologist's "prediction" to focus on rallying for bigger, wide-reaching change, whether that's boycotting companies (or even just buying from them less), donating to climate lawyers/projects, leading protests, or even something as simple as spreading information. And maybe look into good climate news periodically; there is a lot of good going on, but it gets buried by overblown headlines formulated to make you panic click.
Oh, and if you're in an area where you're able, take walks without a phone and just appreciate nature. It's good to do stuff like that to ground yourself once in a while and sort out your thoughts.
(All this coming from someone who used to be so wildly depressed and pessimistic I spent most of the day in bed and refused to see life and goodness when it was right in front of me, by the way, so this is coming from what helped me, not just stuff I pulled out of thin air.)
This post is months old. You really don't need to reply to posts that old, particularly sensitive ones like this. If you want to talk more, perhaps try the Discord.
-Ls
Yes, that means I didn't catch the "new years" in the title... I was super not-focused that day, my bad.
Our species first appeared 300,000 years ago. We only developed modern agriculture 11,000 years and change ago. Even if things do indeed go bad throughout this century, we're adapted to survive a world that is much, much less engineered for human comfort and survival. We'll still be able to construct shelters, forage food, and build community. Remember, it's not our technology or economies or legal systems that make us "civilized." It's our ability to join together in cooperation and care-giving, to protect and provide for each other. And that's something that coded right into our DNA, something we had for millennia before we even arrived at the technological breakthrough of "put seeds in ground on purpose."
—doctorlit asserts that humans will do well
and I will try not to put myself in situations that require reassurance-seeking in the future.
I definitely clicked thinking it was a question about the future of the PPC, and I expect there are people for whom the actual question could cause a lot of anxiety, so...warning label added.
Yuki, I don't mean for this to make you feel bad; however, I do think a mention that this is not PPC-related may be helpful, so I've added one. Obviously not everything non-PPC necessarily has to be marked as such, but for topics like this I'm pretty sure having it be clear from the post titles what it's about is helpful. Often I see this happen organically, especially in political threads; either way, when it comes to RL Serious Topics, I think it's generally a good thing for people to have a little advance warning so they can choose whether or not they want to engage, and can avoid clicking on the thread entirely if they came to the Board specifically for writing/fandom related content (especially as a break from news sites or other platforms).
~Z
I'm a rather pessimistic person. As in, I'd think I have oral cancer if I get a canker sore.
P.S: Everyone here is indeed among the most supportive people I've ever interacted with, and I'm sorry if I've bothered anyone.
Thanks for the clarification. I got confused, and concerned, for a moment when I saw the original post. /nm And you haven't bothered me too much, so don't worry about me.
I doubt humans will go extinct, as we've proved ourselves to be quite tenacious. One of my worldbuilding projects actually revolves around some human populations leaving the Solar System to spread across the galaxy once Earth becomes inhospitable; a subsequent convention among the space-bound countries puts the home system off limits for war purposes, although stuff like tourism and pilgrimages to Mecca are permitted, of course (albeit super expensive because in this universe, the resources required for FTL travel are difficult to mass produce). And this is a bad scenario, where humans continue to strip Earth of resources and slowly degrade it, causing them to move off-world. In the end, I wish humanity the best and hope we don't trash our planet beyond saving, because I'm rather fond of Earth.
Well, that was sappy of me. On a tangential note, I kind of want to see a space battle within my lifetime.
Where on Earth did you hear that?!?
—Ls, more confused than panicked
I think you’re referring to climate change, but your original post was so vague, it could have been referring to virtually any disaster, from an alien invasion to the Second Coming. (Which I guess could be considered synonymous, now that I think about it, except the Second Coming shouldn’t make humanity extinct anyway so that was a bad example aughhghafafsfvjkl.)
—Ls
and it's getting proven more and more that maybe the world is better off without humans.
Unless you just want my opinion on the hypothetical. I’ll give that, but I certainly think that the idea of humanity going extinct in 100 years in far from “proven”.
—Ls needs autocorrect to remind him that proven only has one o
https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-human-extinction-would-change-the-earth/amp/
It’s just that it includes a link to another article that does, in fact, claim that.
However, just because one guy says that doesn’t mean that he’s right.
First of all, he’s a prominent microbiologist. His predictions have nothing whatsoever to do with microbiology, which makes me question his claims heavily.
Secondly, he admits he’s just being pessimistic. That doesn’t automatically make him wrong, just... interpreting events through a specific lens.
Thirdly, his entire argument is essentially just Malthusianism. Malthusianism has had serious, and quite valid criticisms.
—Ls
Human population growth is already slowing. If I remember right, the UN predicted that the global human population would top off at under 12 billion. And what the Malthusianism critique said is correct: the birth rate in food-secure countries is lower than in food-insecure countries, due to education and women's rights allowing women to make informed choices about whether they want children or not. The countries in question are well on the road to becoming "developed" countries, and humanity will soon reach a point where equilibrium is reached between human births and deaths.
Overall, I do not think overpopulation is something people should be concerned about. But those are just my thoughts on the subject. /nm
It’s not clear how it’s derived from your username. Not that that’s a bad thing at all, I’m just curious.
(Most of us who have a message ender that isn’t just [symbol]name derive the second element from our names somehow, often abbreviating a two-part name—the Lin and Star are actually from different sources, kinda.)
—Ls
I'm used to writing tone tags with a slash. (No relation to slash fic, heh.)
(nm) means "no message". It's auto-appended to the title of any post with a blank body.
I believe it stands for "no message".
--Ls