Unless you’re talking about the Amish, you’re giving us too much credit. We could choose simpler lives, but the reality is we will continue to do business with the worst of the worst if it makes our lives even a modicum more easy, because that’s human nature. We don’t realize long term risks well, we’re programmed to dodge snake attacks; not greedy snake-like other humans.
You think the average human can just “choose” whatever life they want? Just get up one day and be like, “you know what? I’m going to save up for a horse and buggy.” That’s not a possibility for the vast majority of people. Go to the YouTube channels featuring people who HAVE made that switch in life and it’s usually people who had a lot of money, time, and independence before they made the decision.
I know you probably have very decent intentions when you say this, but the lack of depth in consideration around how much actual freedom of movement people have is just really frustrating that it borders on victim blaming. Most people simply cannot do what you’re making sound like it’s a choice like flipping a light switch. It’s not.
Even making simple changes in lifestyle can be challenging. What is up and down? A well educated person might still be confused as we had decades of a recycling industry that was basically non-existent, corporate interests intentionally confusing, and a whole corner of the public discourse outright lying to people about reality. It’s extremely challenging and often very expensive to choose the more environmentally conscious items when buying food and basic needs. Most people don’t have public transit options, can’t afford an EV, or don’t even have access to better options for what they buy either way.
This problem is way more complicated than you’re making it and the fact yours is a common position on social media is extremely tiring. It’s also just a lazy take that is akin to yelling at traffic while you yourself are part of it. So I hope you at least counted yourself when you made that comment.
Yes, that’s what I wanted to point out, because the comment sounded like the appeal to nature fallacy (aka nature is good humans are bad). Mindlessly changing its environment for its own benefit seems to be something that every form of life tend to do, except we are smart enough to understand it’s going to make us suffer, so we should improve it.
Humans deserve everything we’re about to get as a result of climate change but watching things like this happen is heartbreaking.
Hard agree. The animals didn’t do anything wrong. :(
The vast majority of the humans are just along for the ride as well.
Unless you’re talking about the Amish, you’re giving us too much credit. We could choose simpler lives, but the reality is we will continue to do business with the worst of the worst if it makes our lives even a modicum more easy, because that’s human nature. We don’t realize long term risks well, we’re programmed to dodge snake attacks; not greedy snake-like other humans.
You think the average human can just “choose” whatever life they want? Just get up one day and be like, “you know what? I’m going to save up for a horse and buggy.” That’s not a possibility for the vast majority of people. Go to the YouTube channels featuring people who HAVE made that switch in life and it’s usually people who had a lot of money, time, and independence before they made the decision.
I know you probably have very decent intentions when you say this, but the lack of depth in consideration around how much actual freedom of movement people have is just really frustrating that it borders on victim blaming. Most people simply cannot do what you’re making sound like it’s a choice like flipping a light switch. It’s not.
Even making simple changes in lifestyle can be challenging. What is up and down? A well educated person might still be confused as we had decades of a recycling industry that was basically non-existent, corporate interests intentionally confusing, and a whole corner of the public discourse outright lying to people about reality. It’s extremely challenging and often very expensive to choose the more environmentally conscious items when buying food and basic needs. Most people don’t have public transit options, can’t afford an EV, or don’t even have access to better options for what they buy either way.
This problem is way more complicated than you’re making it and the fact yours is a common position on social media is extremely tiring. It’s also just a lazy take that is akin to yelling at traffic while you yourself are part of it. So I hope you at least counted yourself when you made that comment.
You’re giving the Amish too much credit, even. You can fuck up the Earth plenty with 1850’s tech.
Not that other critters would be better in our shoes. The fact is we never evolved to manage the whole Earth, but we inevitably have to.
Animals can do wrong too, though they are not as aware of it. https://asm.org/Articles/2022/February/The-Great-Oxidation-Event-How-Cyanobacteria-Change
Cyanobacteria are not animals, or even eukaryotes. It’s right there in the name.
I’d personally agree that being eaten is bad whether it’s by Jeffrey Dahmer or a lion, but that’s a weird way of arguing for it.
Change animal with non-human.
Oh, I see. Yeah, all sorts of organisms can have impacts we don’t like (and it is worth pointing out that biodiversity is itself a human goal).
Yes, that’s what I wanted to point out, because the comment sounded like the appeal to nature fallacy (aka nature is good humans are bad). Mindlessly changing its environment for its own benefit seems to be something that every form of life tend to do, except we are smart enough to understand it’s going to make us suffer, so we should improve it.