this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
238 points (86.3% liked)

Funny

6854 readers
343 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FictionalCrow@yiffit.net 18 points 8 months ago (15 children)

While funny. This has always been a rather retarded take. Semantics. I for one value a biosphere capable of supporting humans > "the people"

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Nah, I take solace in knowing that if we destroy ourselves or collapse all civilization with our own self-destructive nature, life will go on and Earth will renew. We're fuck ups to be sure, but even we can't fuck up enough to completely sterilize the planet.

Maybe everything in all existence isn't about us. Honestly I hope not.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 11 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The runaway greenhouse effect causing a collapse of the biosphere would take out more than just humanity. It's already killed a huge number of species and it's not going to slow down as it gets worse.

[–] Huschke@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Don't worry. The cockroaches will evolve and take over.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 2 points 8 months ago (9 children)

While they're better suited to hostile environments, they too are affected by global temperature increases. Their metabolic rates increase significantly in higher temperatures, causing them to need more food and more O2, both of which will be significantly reduced in a runaway greenhouse scenario.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Normally I'd totally agree with you but the more I see how badly we've fucked everything (google AMOC and water temps) the more I worry about runaway effects that continue far after we've been deleted entirely from the ecosystem (and most of the ecosystem to boot) - there's only so much CO2 you can pump into a system before warming becomes rapidly self sustaining - see Venus.

[–] Gabu@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

As far as we know, the problem with Venus is that it never developed a cycle of aerobic and anaerobic life forms. Even if we pump the atmosphere full of CO2, some photosyntethising life forms will still remain.

[–] PhreakyByNature 10 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I don't think it's "prioritise humans over the planet" but more "we should be able to look after one another as a base level of being human. If we can't figure that out how the hell can we focus on bigger things like the planet". Not saying what we should and shouldn't do but just throwing shade at our ability.

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 6 points 8 months ago

For example, we're quickly making the planet too hot for some people to live where their homes are. We should find ways to stop heating up the planet to help them!

[–] FictionalCrow@yiffit.net 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Honestly at this point I'd accept eco fascism. Arguing about "taking care of each other" while life support is failing and we enter triage levels of failure is inane

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

the problem there is it requires a power base to enforce - and all the power bases seemed determined to drive off the cliff (some are tapping the brakes but the rest are full throttle and rolling coal for lulz) at one speed or another - and a military industrial complex large enough to be strategically effective would be (like the US army) one of the largest polluters in the world.

I want something to change, I just don't see ecofascism ( a really bad term btw ) as a possible avenue.

Victor Von Doom levels of resources/soverign agency might be able to. I think us humans are going to be a sad end note in some other species' extraterrestrial archeology, after so many of them run into our radio and other emissions.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Exactly what he was implying, I agree.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Carlin's gist was that the planet will be fine, it's everything else - so we better get our shit together soon.

IIRC this was in the 90s. Not a literal take.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 8 months ago

Yeah. I mean good luck taking care of anyone including yourself in the dystopian hellscape wrought be late stage capitalism. It's funny to be sure, but it's part of an act. Taking care of each other requires an environment that isn't toxic and bereft of food.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] DeadNinja@lemmy.world 17 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it - Robert Swan

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 9 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Oh, Carlin. On one hand I wish you were still here, but in the other hand I'd hate to hear what you thought if what we've become.

[–] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

He'd be laughing his ass off, at our expense as we deserve, that's for sure.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I miss him so. I wish people would read his books, the man knew how to deconstruct human thought and it's crude tool, language, in a way I've never seen equaled.

I think he would have had a coronary during Trump, if he didn't attempt to murder Trump himself lol.

[–] amio@kbin.social 3 points 8 months ago

Carlin could have a bunch of really stupid fucking takes too, I guess. What an argument.

load more comments
view more: next ›