When The earth Has Had It Up To Here With Humans

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: namehere

It is not nature that is trying to kill us, it is ourselves not wanting to be a part of nature.
We are our own death.

The "convenience" element in society has destroyed that. Humans have become intolerant and lazy of natural processes (they just don't care).

a reply to: solve

Have you met us? Going against nature is part of what we're doing here. We are the consummate predator chasing the future across the skin of nature. Delight in the songs of your species!

We are natural. We cannot be unnatural.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: solve

Have you met us? Going against nature is part of what we're doing here. We are the consummate predator chasing the future across the skin of nature. Delight in the songs of your species! We are natural. We cannot be unnatural.

Obviously you are creative; what is your dream existence?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

On a personal level? I'd like to design alternate universes.

The macro, IMO, was set when we passed 100,000,000 people. It was always going to be an insane race by the skin of our teeth to transcend ourselves long enough to remember what we really are. Humanity -- divided from love, for a chance at union (or bust). We keep scrapping our faces every step. We work furiously and create new tools. We course correct and make the next jump forward, but our purpose is clear --we must claw our way out of our gravity well, shoot our seed across the empty stars and bring our galaxy to life.

That's what I believe. That is the well of all our hopes and dreams. The memories of 100,000,000,000 souls.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

lazy? do you really think all this convenience we have was/is easy to acquire? it didn't just magically appear out of nowhere, we had to figure it out the hard way through thousands of years of built upon knowledge of many civilizations and had to work hard to get where we are. such statements are insulting and step all over the efforts of so many, such ungrateful thinking is the real problem with so many modern people, not even recognizing how hard it's been figuring out how to beat nature.
all life is hostile and constantly fighting to live, with limited time and resources and food, life is a battle of survival and any species that fails to fight back against nature will die, nature loves one thing and that is creating new better things, it could care less about sentimentality or abstract concepts.

to live is to conquer, peace is a fleeting illusion. and one day we will subjugate nature under our heel, we have to if we wish to survive.

originally posted by: 0zzymand0s
a reply to: vethumanbeing

On a personal level? I'd like to design alternate universes.
That's what I believe. That is the well of all our hopes and dreams. The memories of 100,000,000,000 souls.

If you have that thought you are probably doing so as we speak. I am glad to have made contact with you.

a reply to: namehere
Yes; too easily acquired (BY OTHERS) doing the work in which YOU (an afterthought) benefited vicariously by accidental circumstance. This world is in declination; all that was noble has been experienced. There is nothing left to define or distinguish what HEROIC action looks like. What is the new civilian medal of honor; "I did not let my 1200 dollar DUD of a Samsung energy efficient Refrigerator destroy me" and how I survived "Sears" betrayal.

a reply to: lostbook

Nature certainly has population control built in in, Its a matter of finding out what is used to control humans.

Earth will be just fine. The people are screwed, but what else is new?

The affect of man-made climate change has been, in its entirety, within the last 150 years since the industrial revolution began with the discovery of fossil fuels. Earth is billions of years old. Our presence has been little more than a popcorn fart in a tornado as far as Earth is concerned. We think far too much of ourselves. It is only through supreme arrogance that we would assume that anything we did could have that much of an effect on something so huge in such a short time. And it is even more arrogant to assume that we piddly little humans can do anything about it now.

Like any other fauna, humans have enjoyed an unparalleled period of growth. Unchecked growth, however, leads inevitably to overpopulation and scarcity of supplies. As nature has so often shown, it is only through a thorough culling of the herd that the species can survive. If we don't do it - nature will do it for us the hard way. But it will happen.

It always does.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

This is an interesting question, can anything be "unnatural"...

If we would systematically destroy every living thing, species by species, and would create weapons that can destroy planets, engines that can deplete stars, and technology that could end space time.

Would it be "natural"?

Yes it would.

But when thinking these kind of questions, it is important to understand that our words, languages, and brains are all quite limited.

The meaning is lost.

a reply to: solve

Absolutely.

But there also has to be a counterpoint to the extreme "nature populism" of the net, where omnivores shouldn't eat meat because it's "not natural" and women should be body shamed for shaving their legs or armpits because it's "not natural," or even the argument that people should only use alternative medicine because "chemicals are not natural."

Here's the thing. We can kvetch like hippies over the state of "mother earth" or how she will "shake us off like fleas" as much as we like, but in the end -- -reality is what reality is.

Humans are tool-using animals who must crawl up out of their womb-well if they are going to survive because (1) all the eggs in one basket is moronic and (2) new frontiers is what we do and our civilization will shrivel up and die without them.

We are not wired to retreat back to Eden. It isn't who we are as a species and it's not what we're about. No matter how many miserable, depressed hippies pray for our extinction to satisfy some gross mother fetish.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

If you ask me, the current trend leads to a situation that is purely man made, not voyaging to other planets like in star trek, but rather sitting in a self sustained box in space, and most likely not even being a human, because the vessel needs to be man made too, so it would be a collective mind inside a construct.


I am no hippie but i would rather just be one of the simple animals, sleep f(SNIP), eat- repeat.


In other words, i believe that our natural (there is that word again) environment can place us under the correct stress and test situations in order to create a functioning life form. I could not compete to create a better screening system, or hope to achieve superior results.


I would not want to go back to eden but curious where this path would have taken us as a species, looks like heaven.

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: 0zzymand0s
This is an interesting question, can anything be "unnatural"...
If we would systematically destroy every living thing, species by species, and would create weapons that can destroy planets, engines that can deplete stars, and technology that could end space time. Would it be "natural"?
Yes it would.But when thinking these kind of questions, it is important to understand that our words, languages, and brains are all quite limited. The meaning is lost.

You are correct. Everything is natural; as in obeying a scheme set in place by others. There is a calculated end to all this is; but it will go on in another form; it always has even if it involved total destruction of some ecosystems. Do overs have always occurred on this experimental planet.

a reply to: lostbook

yes it does, and its called capitalism.

QUOTE ((( The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually, he explained. That's enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed ((( 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores )))
First servay is out at this time earth has around 7. billion Human omnivores .
And the only reason any starve is because of mismanagement not because we cant grown enough food .
BUT doing what Humans do now will eventually cause environmental collapse and once that happens a big die off will as well .
What it cant happen you say > well i can name 3 citys that will be Ghost towns in 30 years . Tucson AZ - Phoenix AZ
Vegas NV . In a world darn near covered in water these citys will not have any much longer and there is no simple solution .
The mega citys rely on being able to import much of what they need and even a small change on transport will mean death for most of them .
Say a Solar flare aimed at earth Not a question OF IF BUT when .
Our civilization is balanced on a razers edge . A storm a fuel shortage a sun flare a war a drought a Busted pipe in the wrong place .
Humans have had a LONG run of Luck in the last 200 years .Mount Tambora in Indonesia in April 1815
www.usatoday.com...
That happens today a Billion will starve and all out war .

The USA has self-sufficient agriculture. Sure we import some foods, like bananas, coffee, and chocolate, but we don't have to. We can feed our people with our existing agriculture, cows and chickens included.

The parts of the world that are most overpopulated are the ones dependent on food imports. most of Africa, India, and China to name a few.

If they don't bring their populations under control the most obvious thing to do would be to cut off food exports.

Recently China overturned it's one child policy. It seems they intend to increase their population. China has also polluted over 99% of it's fresh water. The yellow river is undrinkable. Toxic waste is in the soil. The smog is so thick it kills thousands of people each year. It sounds like a post-apocalyptic Hollywood movie but it's real.

I would suggest we stop looking for global solutions to regional problems. It's not the responsibility of the USA or Europe to maintain China's, India's, and Africa's populations.

The population of western civilization is in decline by the way. We have a negative birth rate. We can support our populations into perpetuity with our existing infrastructure. What we have to do is stop letting more foreigners in.

I think the earth is a living being, different than we generally perceive a life form to be. I think she doesn't mind us living on her, but when we injure her, then she will do whatever she has to to protect herself, like any other living being would do.
a reply to: lostbook