Anonymous #1 5w

(a term for it is anthropocentrism btw)

8

Anonymous #1 5w

To some extent the species based prioritization is definitely warranted, we are the greatest thing that’s ever come from this planet. We definitely have to squash our fascination with profits, unfortunately it really is the only thing holding us back at the moment

-2

Anonymous OP 5w

how are we the greatest thing that’s ever come from this planet when we’re basically just destroying it for funsies? 🤷🏼‍♀️ but i understood your Helldivers reference tho lmao

6

Anonymous OP 5w

do you understand that the next estimated extinction event is already called the “Holocene extinction” or the “Anthropocene extinction” by many scientists, entirely and solely caused by human activity. *we*, who you proclaim as the greatest thing that’s ever come from this planet, are the sole causes of the next extinction event predicted to reach a peak around 2100. holy fucking cope. let me guess, do you also think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax?

6

Anonymous #1 5w

(apologies and correction, I misspoke: not a peak around 2100, a possible trigger-event. that’s my bad!)

1

Anonymous #1 5w

So you reason as to why humanity cant be the greatest most advanced thing the planet has ever produced, is that its so advanced in its capabilities that it could destroy (or not destroy) the earth?

-1

Anonymous #2 5w

How aren’t we, what other species would come close? Helldivers is fun, same with halo

-1

Anonymous OP 5w

Oh my foolish friend. Firstly, you’re mistaken. We do not have the capability to destroy this planet, and we’re nowhere close to it. We do, however, have the capability to make the planet unlivable for a few hundred thousand to a few million years. Secondly, our capability to *temporarily* disrupt this planet’s capability to house life, especially complex life (the only planet we know is capable of doing so, and has already done so, I might add), does not dictate how advanced we are in

6

Anonymous #1 5w

Relation to other species. It may mean we’ve outpaced them, or that we’ve garnered more knowledge into certain things, another lifeform’s lack of ability to engage in specifically human tasks does not dictate its intellect or development, that right there is the pitfall of anthropocentrism. For example, we have the most garnered knowledge into advanced topics, like science, mathematics, etc (as far as we know), but we by far are the most parasitic mammal on the planet in comparison to others.

5

Anonymous #1 5w

Fuck, all we do is extract from the planet, and we barely even contribute back to the environment anymore - we even primarily burn our dead now which destroys the majority of nutrients which WOULDVE been absorbed by the ground prior to cremation our willingness to disrupt the capability for life on this planet is not something to be applauded tbh

4

Anonymous #1 5w

The ability to wipe life from existence planet wide is quite literally a reflection on how advanced a species is, there has never been a species that could come close “We by far are the most parasitic mammals on the planet” isn’t even a real scientific claim

0

Anonymous #1 5w

“Sure we may have outpaced them in the evolutionary sense and garnered more knowledge but we also hurt the environment”

0

Anonymous OP 5w

except it quite literally is a scientific claim, and isn’t exactly a new idea “Homo sapiens: cancer or parasite?” DOI: 10.3354/esep00152

5

Anonymous OP 5w

Also, “Lesson: Moving Human Societies from Parasitism to Mutualism with Earth” explains why we can be classified as parasitic in our relationship to the planet and other species, and advocates for a shift in collective behavior towards mutualism. https://www.sesync.org/resources/lesson-moving-human-societies-parasitism-mutualism-earth

5

Anonymous #1 5w

Before I read that paper, have you actually read it or did you find the first thing that looked like it supported your viewpoint

0

Anonymous OP 5w

Also we aren’t just “hurting the environment”, we’re actively destroying it for future generations. the earth will go on, and it will eventually heal, but if we do not change our ways, we as a species (and most of the species living alongside us) will not survive as long as we normally would. For your knowledge: we have roughly 60 growth cycles of harvesting left, before it’s estimated that we destroy the majority of the topsoil on the planet, making it near-impossible to farm in-ground.

2

Anonymous OP 5w

Yes, I have. Here’s the conclusion by the way, if you were wondering whether the overall point supported my argument: “”” The question is, therefore, whether it will be possi- ble to turn us humans into benign parasites on the surface of the earth, whose various evolved ecosys- tems would retain their ability to function,

6

Anonymous #1 5w

Just for shits and giggles, what is the most advanced species in your opinion. Since it clearly isn’t humans

0

Anonymous #1 5w

or rather, whether we will continue to be part of the earth’s ecosystem in the same way that a malignant tumor is — never for a long time — part of a person’s body: All bets are off. “””

1

Anonymous OP 5w

mate, if you really want to harp on this, sure. If we’re talking about being technologically advanced, or medically advanced, yeah we’re topping the rest. We’ve developed faster than others, but the issue here is we’re attempting to dictate the development of other species based on the development of our own; so it’s fundamentally flawed. For example, how I called us the most advanced medically: technically that’s false, as I could arguably call a species like the starfish more medically

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Advanced due to its inherent regenerative capabilities due to evolution. but that’s an example of determining the development of other species based on our own, not as related to the environmental issues, but definitely anthropocentrism

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Also, I apologize for the ranting but you might find this interesting lol, apparently crows have recently entered the Stone Age! Unrelated, but cool imo lol

3

Anonymous OP 5w

buddy, the best organism to ever happen to this planet is cyanobacteria. they’re the reason the sky is blue and saturated with oxygen… they basically caused the Cambrian Explosion, which created us. they’re pretty neat! i studied freshwater biology and literally everything freshwater.

6

Anonymous #2 5w

Nahhh that cant be true because they caused the Great Oxidation Event, which by #1’s logic puts them out of the running

0

Anonymous OP 5w

symbiotic vs parasitic tbh, the great oxidation event was the trigger that allowed for aerobic, and later more complex, forms of life to begin developing. Who knows, maybe in 2 billions years after we cause a mass extinction event and fill the atmosphere with an overwhelming amount of carbon dioxide, a whole new set of lifeforms that primarily breath co2 might evolve, then we might be able to consider the Anthropocene extinction as somewhat similar to the great oxidation event.

1

Anonymous OP 5w

but tbh that’s a lotta cope

1

Anonymous #1 5w

Its the same logic, but I agree that the logic is cope

1

Anonymous OP 5w

But it is interesting that the conversation had to steer away from “ most advanced” to “best”

1

Anonymous #1 5w

I’m saying that the Anthropocene is not like the great oxidation event because it does not contribute to the planet, only strip away. the “cope” that I’m trying to allude to is trying to say the great oxidation event is parasitic based on me (and actual scientists I might reaffirm) saying that our relationship with the planet is parasitic. I should’ve made that clearer, that’s my bad.

1

Anonymous #1 5w

The paper you referenced didn’t definitively say either way, it also is just a philosophical ecology essay written by a fisheries scientist

1

Anonymous #1 5w

“A species so blindly consumptive it accidentally caused a mass extinction through its own waste” Am I talking about cyanobacteria or humanity? You’re giving a single celled organism with no brain credit for something its not capable of conceiving

1

Anonymous OP 5w

Why can’t I give them credit if it wasn’t sentient? It still happened. We are consciously aware of our own destruction of our planet and singlehandedly destroying and permanently extinguishing ecosystems on our planet for the sake of “transport” or “industry” whatever. We are aware of carrying capacity and don’t give a fuck. Cyanobacteria still exists, many causing harmful algal blooms and causing aquatic die-offs, and some of the species are toxic too. I love algae in general tbh.

3