
We're killing off the only life we know of anywhere in the universe - anigbrowl
https://eand.co/were-killing-off-the-only-life-we-know-of-anywhere-in-the-universe-912b9d340184
======
WheelsAtLarge
The same instincts that have given us the world we have now will in time
destroy the world we live in.

The accumulation of resources, survival at any cost, the need to find a mate
and reproduce without regard to the overall population and ultimately the
intelligence to do it above any other species is what ultimately will cause
the extinction of the human race unless we are able to overcome our instincts
and change our ways.

The irony is that we are suppose to be the smartest species to ever inhabit
the earth.

------
le-mark
_Now, this thought — we’re killing off the only life we know anywhere in the
universe — is impossible to hold. It’s literally quite impossible to process
for, I’d say, 99% of people on the planet. You can try, but you’ll fail. What
does that make us? Murderers? Genocidaires? Fools? You see what I mean. Now
you’re either in denial, despair, frustration, or rage — but what you haven’t
done is simply hold the thought, and see what it means._

I've been waiting for this view point to become more prominent. In my view the
logical conclusion is; from a moral perspective the only thing we can do is
vacate this planet and let evolution continue free of our influence. Who can
know what other intelligence may evolve in our absence?

Or maybe I read too much Andre Norton as a lad?

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/462481.Breed_to_Come](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/462481.Breed_to_Come)

~~~
mimixco
This is a quasi-religious viewpoint that suggests plants and animals are
superior to humans so we should get out of their way. The opposite view, that
the planet is here _for us_ can also be used to come around to taking better
care of this place we live.

------
iamwil
So let's say we can convince people to do this. How would it work? What's the
mechanic? Would it be that just x% of profits go into maintaining nature, just
as some corporations set aside x% of their profits for charity?

Or something else altogether?

------
dpflan
The crux of the matter: “Life itself dying off because we are trying to use
18th century economics — built for the industrial age — to solve 21st century
problems.”

Evolution of economic systems: what comes after capitalism?

~~~
mimixco
There is nothing "after" capitalism which hasn't already been tried with
disastrous consequences (read: death, starvation, and violence).

Either you own your body, your land, your labor, and your money -- or the
state owns them for you. What makes the state a good determiner of what's best
for humanity? It doesn't have that great a track record.

~~~
polotics
Capitalism with accounting of externalities, priced by the market. It's not
that hard to conceive.

------
mimixco
I totally get the ecological argument but how would changing to a socialist
system (which is what we're talking about here without saying the word) fix
it?

The planet's woes are caused by bad human behavior. There's no rule that says
one must be inherently bad in order to have a capitalist business, just like
there's no rule that would make a socialist economy naturally non-polluting.
Governments and militaries are terrible polluters and they don't have a profit
motive.

People are people and collectivism won't change that. Hitler, too, wanted the
"New Man." It's dangerous to suggest that letting others decide for us
(statism) would be capable of bringing that about.

~~~
marccarre
I don't understand this article as being about changing to a socialist system.
AFAIU, it is about better taking Life & Nature into account in our current
economic system & models. We do to some extent, but they are massively
undervalued, and economy & ecology aren't current aligned (otherwise we
wouldn't be having this discussion in first place), hence our current economy
is unsustainable.

I think of it as finding the "fair price" for having X many trees, X many wild
animals, pure air, pure water, etc. on our planet and consuming some to
produce goods, food, etc. ; i.e. a fairer price between the immediate gain,
and the longer term consequences. A metaphor: what's the "fair price" for the
"goose that laid the golden eggs" and the profit/loss for killing it?

~~~
mimixco
If the price is determined by _anything_ other than the market, that's
socialism/collectivism/statism.

The idea that someone could do a better job of pricing than the market (with
whatever definition of "better" appeals to you) has been disproved again and
again. A person doesn't become an expert in what's "better" just because they
work for the government. Thinking that it would amounts to worship of the
state as an entity.

------
ciconia
I think the jury is still out as to who will win this terrible war of Man
Against Nature. One thing is sure though: if Man does win, and Nature becomes
completely subjugated, then life is simply not worth living...

~~~
Gys
For an incredible number of ppl (seems to me) the idea of spending all their
time in a mall-like environment, spending money (credits?) on things they not
need, eating and drinking fancy looking ‘artificial’ (overly processed, no
relation to anything natural) food is the ultimate goal.

‘Its life Jim, but not as we know it’ ;-)

------
piano-tamperer
Genocide seems a likelier solution than pretending you can invent a 'non-
capitalist' economic solution that somehow supports 7 billion plus people
without causing massive ecological damage.

