[onlooker]

just thought I would post this link, so we can see some impacts of humans upon Earth, note this is actually from 2008, so some 7 years ago. But still interesting to peruse.
https://feww.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/t ... rs-sister/

[dohboi]

I'm not wild about reducing the entire non-human world to a set of 'services' for the human world, but it's a good list, anyway.

It prompts the question for me--when exactly should we have stopped?

Invention of fire?
Of language?
Of clothing?
Of burial customs that seem to separate the body from its surroundings?
Of domestication of dogs? Of cattle? Of horses? Of other animals?
Of ag?
Of writing?
Of pottery, that allowed storage of grain?
Of the wheel?
Of metallurgy? Copper, bronze, iron...?
Of the idea of private property?
Of cities?
Of writing?
Of printing?
Of zero?
Of science?
Of industrialism?
Of capitalism?
Of fossil fuel use?
.
.
.

What was the crucial turning point that set us on our current path of seemingly universal destruction?

[Ibon]

What was the crucial turning point that set us on our current path of seemingly universal destruction?

Fossil fuels together with germ theory and antibiotics. This was the crucial turning point. Fossil fuels enabled the green revolution in agriculture (conquering famine) and germ theory and antibiotics conquered temporarily disease. Disease and famine where our two main predators and once we conquered them we started on the road that led to exponential growth.

Before fossil fuels and germ theory we were within carrying capacity.

[KaiserJeep]

Depends upon your entire point of view. I believe that the only purpose that Earth serves is to nurture human beings during our species infancy on the surface of the planet. If the Earth keeps enough humans alive to populate space, it has served it's purpose. You need not change anything.

[Lore]

A purpose denotes some kind of manipulative intelligence. While humans may have a biological purpose to survive the earth has none.

The real fate of Homo sapiens may have already been written in our DNA. The universe spins on into infinity and we're just a period in an endless book. Whether we live or die makes no difference one way or the other.

[Ibon]

Depends upon your entire point of view. I believe that the only purpose that Earth serves is to nurture human beings during our species infancy on the surface of the planet. If the Earth keeps enough humans alive to populate space, it has served it's purpose. You need not change anything.

Disposable earth. It has served its purpose. KJ, you have grown up in a disposable society.

I doubt that there is any built in obsolescence with our planet.

So your point of view is purely objective and is not influenced by that trash bag you left out on the curb this morning?

[Ibon]

I had a thought in my caffeinated brain this morning.

As physical resources constrain the bottle neck that we will pass through wont only be a bottleneck of physical constraints. It will be a bottleneck of cultural identity

At the moment the luxury of the times we live in permit a wide variety of narratives and points of view, KJ's is just one example.

Physical constraints will result in our narratives narrowing as well as we pass through the bottleneck.

Our points of view will be herded through that bottleneck and we will come out on the other side far more unified than we were going into it.

Or?

[onlooker]

Good morning, Ibon, I think Kaiser is putting the horse before the cart then the other way around. We owe our existence to the Earth as does every other living creature who has and does grace this planet. So on face value this belief expounded is really warped

[GHung]

KJ has latched onto the only positive alternative that he can come up with, no matter how fantastic (and impossible) that alternative may be. No room in his world view for negative outcomes.

[Ibon]

No room in his world view for negative outcomes.

No room for an outcome that does not keep humans as exceptional. Some religions do the same. No other animal but humans have a soul and only humans have an afterlife.

Reincarnation religions being the exception.

I believe in the reincarnation of Kudzu Ape biomass one day being recycled back into the food chain of native ecosystems. This helps me immensely cope with our dilemma.

No one is free of narratives that help us cope. All of us have our own unique coping mechanisms.

Some (like mine ) are more grounded in reality.

[onlooker]

Undoubtedly, Kasier's about space colonies is a coping mechanism that fits his humanistic world view that humans are so endowed and potent. But like you said Ibon, some coping mechanisms at this point are more grounded in reality then others

[GHung]

Here's a coping mechanism for ya:

Johnny Mercer -

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between

You've got to spread joy up to the maximum
Bring gloom down to the minimum
Have faith, or pandemonium
Liable to walk upon the scene

(To illustrate his last remark
Jonah in the whale, Noah in the ark
What did they do
Just when everything looked so dark)

Man, they said we better
Accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between
No, do not mess with Mister In-Between
Do you hear me, hmm?

(Oh, listen to me children and-a you will hear
About the elininatin' of the negative
And the accent on the positive)
And gather 'round me children if you're willin'
And sit tight while I start reviewin'
The attitude of doin' right

(You've gotta accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZUmAbi0Vm4

[onlooker]

Sounds good GHung , really soothing and good. thanks

[Timo]

What was the crucial turning point that set us on our current path of seemingly universal destruction?

Fossil fuels together with germ theory and antibiotics. This was the crucial turning point. Fossil fuels enabled the green revolution in agriculture (conquering famine) and germ theory and antibiotics conquered temporarily disease. Disease and famine where our two main predators and once we conquered them we started on the road that led to exponential growth.

Before fossil fuels and germ theory we were within carrying capacity.

Bingo! At that moment we seperated ourselves from the natural world. We removed ourselves from the equation of survival of the fittest. Fossil fuels introduced a new paradigm of expectations within the human species. Possibilities for tangible acquisitions soared, and suddenly everyone wanted the Jones's widget, just to keep up. Longer lives enabled by antibiotics lead to a new reality where reality eventually became irrelavent. The current generation of humans were raised with the backspace button, and with that went accountability for our actions. Accellerated use of fossil fuels enabled humanity to postpone, and ultimately ignore the consequences of our actions. Ignorance is bliss. In this case, ignorance is also the death of us. We'll die happy.

[Timo]

No one is free of narratives that help us cope. All of us have our own unique coping mechanisms.

Peyote??? Works for me.

[onlooker]

Absolutely guys, but again what stands out is our wanton and predatory harming and destroying of Earth's ecosystems. Fossil fuels are the main catalyst for this. We did it cause we could. This humongous world economy and world population. But as you said Timo most people did not really understand and to this day do not understand the severity of our assault upon the Earth.

[Timo]

Absolutely guys, but again what stands out is our wanton and predatory harming and destroying of Earth's ecosystems. Fossil fuels are the main catalyst for this. We did it cause we could. This humongous world economy and world population. But as you said Timo most people did not really understand and to this day do not understand the severity of our assault upon the Earth.

Wisdom and intelligence are, indeed, very different things. Humanity is too smart for our own good. We've evolved into something that cannot voluntarily be stopped.

I use the word "something" because we are no longer a part of the earth, but are possessers of the earth. The earth is ours to do with as we please. It is a resource, pure and simple. And exhaustable. And ultimately combustible.

[careinke]

I'm not wild about reducing the entire non-human world to a set of 'services' for the human world, but it's a good list, anyway.

It prompts the question for me--when exactly should we have stopped?

Invention of fire?
Of language?
Of clothing?
Of burial customs that seem to separate the body from its surroundings?
Of domestication of dogs? Of cattle? Of horses? Of other animals?
Of ag?
Of writing?
Of pottery, that allowed storage of grain?
Of the wheel?
Of metallurgy? Copper, bronze, iron...?
Of the idea of private property?
Of cities?
Of writing?
Of printing?
Of zero?
Of science?
Of industrialism?
Of capitalism?
Of fossil fuel use?
.
.
.

What was the crucial turning point that set us on our current path of seemingly universal destruction?

I pick agriculture.

[onlooker]

I think we should have stopped with adoption of fossil fuel as main source of energy. We could have diversified energy sources utilizing much more renewable energy and utilizing fossil fuel mainly for transportation and not have constructed so many cars rather utilizing more electric rail - trains and even to the point of phasing out the combustion engine to have primarily electric cars. I think our best use of fossil fuels would have been to create a vast renewable energy infrastructure. Kind of like money in bank the principal would have been fossil fuels and the interest renewable so that eventually we would have so much money just from the interest.

[dohboi]

I do think that that was one crucial turning point.

We needed to have a very strong global tabu against using this source...as strong as the incest tabu, at least. But there was no cultural background to adopts such a tabu. Generally, whenever we have found a new exosomatic energy source, it seemed to be all to the good, as this one seemed to be at first (and still does to many).

It is interesting that the dominant culture at the time had a central cultural story about forbidden fruit, but failed to recognize these new substances as examples of it--in spite of them having many of the elements of our notions of hell and the infernal--black, subterranean, (often) sulfurous, connected with fire...

Is power, ultimately, always just too seductive, at least to one culture or another?