Humans are Fundamentally Stupid Creatures

[Antiwar]

Quote:

No other animal consciously destroys the very environment it is dependent upon for survival, except for the human.

Humans are Fundamentally Stupid Creatures

Humans are destroying the planet at such a rate that it doesn't have time to heal itself.

intpolicydigest.org

 

[Ginger Ale]

Greed. Pure greed.

 

[JH Oldoc]

Greed. Pure greed.

Selfishness and shortsightedness - the cornerstones of conservatism.

 

[Mithrae]

Quote:

No other animal consciously destroys the very environment it is dependent upon for survival, except for the human.

Humans are Fundamentally Stupid Creatures

Humans are destroying the planet at such a rate that it doesn't have time to heal itself.

intpolicydigest.org

That wasn't true when Agent Smith said it, and it's not true now. All organisms either come to an eventual, forced equilibrium with their environment, or they... don't. Obviously in most cases, those equilibria have been established for thousands if not tens of thousands of years, so of course to short-sighted humans it looks like a wonderful harmony of nature in which most of a species' adults die off after just a few breeding seasons, age twenty-five or thirty in human terms, and 30 or 60 or 90% of their babies die off to keep things running smoothly, isn't it beautiful? But we have also seen plenty of examples of introduced species which wreck havoc on their environments: Rabbits and canetoads in Australia, for example, or sheep pretty much everywhere they're sent to graze.

It's disappointing that we're not better and smarter than other animals, for sure, but we're only 'worse' inasmuch as we have even greater power to impact our environment than almost all invasive species.

 

[Antiwar]

That wasn't true when Agent Smith said it, and it's not true now. All organisms either come to an eventual and sometimes forced equilibrium with their environment, or they... don't. Obviously in most cases, those equilibria have been established for thousands if not tens of thousands of years, but we've seen plenty of examples of introduced species which wreck havoc on their environments: Rabbits and canetoads in Australia, for example, or sheep pretty much everywhere they're sent to graze.

The only legitimate argument against the claim is that we don't (sufficiently?) know the consciousness of any other animals.

 

[JH Oldoc]

Rabbits and canetoads in Australia, for example, or sheep pretty much everywhere they're sent to graze.

This is actually what happens when animals are placed into an unnatural (man made) environment.
Sheep? How long have they been native to Australia? Maybe add some wolves.

 

[Felis Leo]

That wasn't true when Agent Smith said it, and it's not true now. All organisms either come to an eventual, forced equilibrium with their environment, or they... don't. Obviously in most cases, those equilibria have been established for thousands if not tens of thousands of years, so of course to short-sighted humans it looks like a wonderful harmony of nature in which most of a species' adults die off after just a few breeding seasons, age twenty-five or thirty in human terms, and 30 or 60 or 90% of their babies die off to keep things running smoothly, isn't it beautiful? But we have also seen plenty of examples of introduced species which wreck havoc on their environments: Rabbits and canetoads in Australia, for example, or sheep pretty much everywhere they're sent to graze.

It's disappointing that we're not better and smarter than other animals, for sure, but we're only 'worse' inasmuch as we have even greater power to impact our environment than almost all invasive species.

I would add: South American army ants and African driver ants do that pretty frequently too. They eat every creature around them without exception so they have to keep moving after the environment around them is stripped clean of literally everything edible.

 

[TheParser]

I have not paid much attention to this whole environment controversy.

After all, I'm 85, so ...

But I think some people are hesitant to believe all the predictions.

Why?

Because some "experts" who say that things are really, really, really bad (e.g., city X will be under water in 20 years!!!!!!) are so obnoxious and cocksure that they turn off ordinary people.

Maybe if the environmentalists would be a little more humble, more ordinary folks would say, "Tell me more. Maybe you have a point."

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I have not paid much attention to this whole environment controversy.

After all, I'm 85, so ...

But I think some people are hesitant to believe all the predictions.

Why?

Because some "experts" who say that things are really, really, really bad (e.g., city X will be under water in 20 years!!!!!!) are so obnoxious and cocksure that they turn off ordinary people.

Maybe if the environmentalists would be a little more humble, more ordinary folks would say, "Tell me more. Maybe you have a point."

Anyone want an example of what the OP was talking about?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

After all, I'm 85, so ...

Old age as an excuse for deliberate ignorance?

 

[dmpi]

Man wouldn't be on top of the food chain is he wasn't the smartest. He certainly isn't the strongest.

 

[Mithrae]

Because some "experts" who say that things are really, really, really bad (e.g., city X will be under water in 20 years!!!!!!) are so obnoxious and cocksure that they turn off ordinary people.

Maybe if the environmentalists would be a little more humble, more ordinary folks would say, "Tell me more. Maybe you have a point."

People do tend to look for whatever excuses they can find to justify their existing habits, don't they? This one - "I'm not gonna believe it unless every single educated person on the planet is calm and reasonable and reliable!" - is a particularly strained one, but it's nice of you to highlight it.