you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]worm 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I think it is important that we understand why people make political decisions. It's very easy to simply dismiss all decisions we don't like as "moneygrubbing" or "corporate evil" (whatever that might actually mean) but I think there's a lot more going on behind these decisions than "fuck nature, gibs monie" which latestagecapitalism is reluctant to acknowledge.

Anyone who fails to comprehend the arguments arrayed against his views will look ill-informed, and his arguments will become unconvincing simply due to the association with ignorance. If you wish to convince people that you are right, the easiest way to do it is to first convince people that you have first considered every other alternative before deciding that yours was the most correct of all the possible arguments.

Also, a minor nitpick: I just don't agree with the "rape of nature" narrative. Every single living creature on this planet, including us, is a part of nature. The idea that just because we've dominated the planet for a couple thousand years we can somehow consider ourselves above the fracas of survival is just wrong.

What humans do is fundamentally the same as what any animal species is doing - extracting resources from our surroundings. There only difference between human mining and ant foraging is that humans happen to do it at a larger scale. The profits which are made are an irrelevant consideration regarding the exploitation of nature - money, profits, and such are simply means by which a colony of humans divides resources within the colony, and constitutes interhuman relations rather than the relationship between mankind and the world.

[–]FormosaOolong 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

What humans do is fundamentally the same as what any animal species is doing - extracting resources from our surroundings. There only difference between human mining and ant foraging is that humans happen to do it at a larger scale.

I heartily disagree with this analogy. Ants are nature's cleaners, not polluters, and they don't extract more than they need. Really the only species that knowingly extracts in excess, pollutes and destroys its environment, wipes out sixty percent of the planet's species in 50 years, creates weapons and machines that could destroy the entire planet, and is actively planning on taking its scathing mindvirus into the greater galaxy, is humans. We are the only one that consistently and ongoingly acts crazily out of balance with its natural surrounds. This is the definition of a parasite of terrifying proportion.

Profits are not an "irrelevant consideration" as you say, because the ignorance that drives this whole disproportionate pillaging and poisoning is always money/power. Even the human endeavors that claim to be for the simple greater good (like health care or policing) have been grossly perverted by their respective monetization. Everything now is being twisted into a cancerous quarterly-profit endless growth model that is impossible and leads to decisions like this, and to products and services that have less and less value and less and less lifespan.

And as for the "simple means by which humans divide resources within the colony," this is a disingenuous representation of the current imbalance and crappy accounting that has led to a drastically widening divide between the haves and have-nots, and to devastation around the planet of which you may not be aware, or perhaps have no concern.

Devotion to the current version of capitalism looks to me like some kind of delusion, in that it refuses to look at the inherent flaws in its design and implementation, and focuses only on the enjoyments of short-term gain gleaned by parasitism, slavery, and destruction.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ants are nature's cleaners,

No, they're not. Just because they happen to think that what we call "dirty" is lovely tasty food source doesn't mean that they're cleaners; that's a very human-centric view of the ants. They're foragers, not cleaners.

and they don't extract more than they need.

… Have you ever seen an ant colony? They extract as much as they can, and use that food to construct more ants, and extract more resources! If your house gets "invaded" by ants, do they take half of your sugar and leave? No! They get as much as they can.

Don't confuse being unable to dominate the world with a conscious choice not to.

[–]FormosaOolong 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Don't confuse being unable to dominate the world with a conscious choice not to

I'm not doing that. I am pointing out that in the natural world, there is an innate balance at work, a mutual give-and-take, that has somehow gotten perverted in humans. I live amongst an array of huge ant colonies by the way.

It is not human-centric to note that the ants' activity of collecting its tasty food source happens to serve a purpose in tidying up dead and rotting stuff etc. There is a balance that occurs in the natural world, and human-centricism has pushed that way out of wack.

Yes, termites will eat your whole house, so the insect analogy is perhaps not worth arguing.

Perhaps in cosmic time, our misguided behaviors are like those weird moments when there is a plague of locusts, or wildfires. An imbalance to reset the balance afresh. In that way maybe our folly is also a natural manifestation--but the difference seems to me that we are (ostensibly) capable of making a conscious choice.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

but the difference seems to me that we are (ostensibly) capable of making a conscious choice.

Even if you don't consider this a difference, this is definitely the most important part.

  • We're trashing thousands upon thousands of ecosystems.
  • We're part of the natural world.
  • Despite the emergent properties of human behaviour being generally predicable, we can choose to act differently.

Instead of arguing about metaphors or what degree of anthropomorphism goes from unrelatable to inaccurate, we should question why we do not choose to act differently, and work to change the things causing that to be the case.

[–]FormosaOolong 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

we should question why we do not choose to act differently, and work to change the things causing that to be the case.

100% in accord with this essential point

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Once again, Wizzwizz swoops in to defend the corporate agenda.

The go-to strategy is to forum slide on bullshit.

The soup of the day: Ants are not harmless, and they would conquer the world if they could.