“Last year, I had a life-changing experience at 90 years old. I went to space, after decades of playing an iconic science-fiction character who was exploring the universe. I thought I would experience a deep connection with the immensity around us, a deep call for endless exploration.
"I was absolutely wrong. The strongest feeling, that dominated everything else by far, was the deepest grief that I had ever experienced.
"I understood, in the clearest possible way, that we were living on a tiny oasis of life, surrounded by an immensity of death. I didn’t see infinite possibilities of worlds to explore, adventures to have, or living creatures to connect with. I saw the deepest darkness I could have ever imagined, contrasting so starkly with the welcoming warmth of our nurturing home planet.
"This was an immensely powerful awakening for me. It filled me with sadness. I realized that we had spent decades, if not centuries, being obsessed with looking away, with looking outside. I did my share in popularizing the idea that space was the final frontier. But I had to get to space to understand that Earth is and will stay our only home. And that we have been ravaging it, relentlessly, making it uninhabitable."
-- William Shatner, actor
@didgebaba I don't agree on the last part - I do think folks will spread beyond Earth. But to do so we will need to understand and coexist with our environment far better than we do now - because we will need to transport that environment with us and exist in it there.
@lyda @didgebaba yeah a virus does want to spread.
@the_q that's an eco-fascist stance, mind. @lyda @didgebaba
@mawhrin @lyda @didgebaba Recognizing that the human species, while able to exist within a natural system, chooses not to is an eco-fascist stance? Or is it the part where the human species moves into an area, uses up all the resources and reproduces beyond support?
@the_q yes; and both are untrue, the greatest resource abuse is remarkably concentrated amongst a small group. (the overpopulation fear is also purely racist; earth is not overpopulated.) @lyda @didgebaba
@mawhrin @lyda @didgebaba Racist? Who the hell is talking about race? I'm talking about the fact humans don't function in this natural system in the same way other animals do. If you can't see that a squirrel's life fits and functions toward the betterment of its environment and a humans doesn't then I can't help you. Just because it hurts your feelings to even consider that you, an individual, causes harm doesn't make it less true. We're all responsible. Deal with it.

@the_q the planet will be fine, it's us who are fucked. (and as every species here, we're ephemeral.)

we're not a virus though, the earth is not overpopulated; and it's not the majority of the population that is responsible for the most significant part of the damage.

on the contrary, the responsibility is concentrated in a remarkably limited number of hands.

@lyda @didgebaba

@mawhrin @lyda @didgebaba "I'm not responsible".. You are. You're using electricity that comes from coal that comes from mining that comes from exploitation. You're on a device made by slaves and powered by children covered in cobalt dust. Your clothes are made by slaves and purchased from companies that pay employees pennies. You're part of the problem just like anyone else, and yes I do understand that companies do more damage, but more damage and less damage are both damage.

@mawhrin
"The planet will be fine" - tell that to the millions of species already wiped out during the anthropicene extinction...

@the_q @lyda @didgebaba

@econads it's a terrible tragedy, and yet the planet will be fine. we, on the other hand, won't be.

(but that's not my whole argument, and not even the crux of my argument – i argue that calling the humanity “virus” and complaining about overpopulation are both eco-fascist stances.)

@mawhrin
What's your definition of the planet exactly? I tend to also be a humans firster and ergo an environmentalist, I'm just interested. Also didn't see him mention overpopulation.

@econads in order of importance:

  • overpopulation: “human species moves into an area, uses up all the resources and reproduces beyond support” fits the meaning quite well.

  • planet, literally the planet earth, the thing that supported various ecosystems across the ages, most of them for most of the time very hostile for humanity to survive. (note: that's not particularly relevant, my point is generally that “destroying the planet” is an entirely antropocentric approach – which is fine, but a bit ironic if at the same time you're calling humanity “a virus”)

(i generally disagree with the teleologic claptrap like “humans bad” (parahprasing) contrasted with “a squirrel's life fits and functions toward the betterment of its environment”; that's just romanticising the ecology and not true at all)

@mawhrin
Well, I mean the planet isn't going to explode, no, it will still be here, but so far this is what the 2nd biggest extinction, wasn't it? I wouldn't call it fine, either.

@the_q A virus won't spread, if he kills his host before he can do so. A virus would have to evolve to spread. I mean, we could try to change our ways. But we do not seem to be very adaptable at this point. The planet seems to die more quickly than us evolving. We might die with it before we establish life beyond earth.

@mawhrin Is it an eco-fascist stance? I have to think about that. As a metaphor it appears pretty on point to me. What exactly do you mean by "eco-facist"?

@lyda @didgebaba

@lyda the problem lies in the environment not being transportable. We can create micro-atmospheres but the magnetic envelope that surrounds Earth, the production of the oxygen, the amount of carbon, the correct temperature food products...these are difficult to establish at scale on a planet without an atmosphere.