Why are humans so self-destructive?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel
You're forgetting that without progress, we wouldn't be able to sit and discuss enviromentalism.

And you're forgeting that we wouldn't need to be discussing environmentalism in such a scenario.

[st_swithin]

Who cares about the air we breath, the environment we pollute and destroy, the species of animals we drive to extinction, the oceans we poison with toxic runoff and sewage, or the atmosphere we slowly degrade with excess cow farts and hairspray propellants when there's a new season of Friends?!?

Where do we direct our attention and our resources? To the most visible concentration of resources - in California's case, we elected the Governator because he's got name recognition and lots of money and fame. If only CALPIRG or Greenpeace had a spokesperson like that.

No one wants to deal with reality because it's too damn depressing. That's why we have TV and movies and video games - we haven't been driven to distraction, we all took our own gas-guzzling SUV's and drove ourselves there.

Let the earth be destroyed - maybe when we're all on the brink of extinction in the aftermatch of a biological epidemic with a 98% mortality rate, we'll start caring about the planet we live on instead of whether or not Ben Affleck shaved his goatee.

[NeOmega]

I was pondering this question yesterday, as I was watching Indiana Jones from my workplace, (across the way at the mall, at a video store), I noticed, violence sells as well as, if not better than, sex. And satisfaction from violence almost seemes to only result from death of the "bad guy".

Lemmings was my end conclusion.

Right now the world is full of rage. America is full of rage. I am full of rage. Everyone is angry. There must be some kind of innate trigger to all this. The world has exploded twice into some serious pouplation control even in modern times.

Male cats will kill the kittens of another male. Male hippos have been noted doing the same.

In the end I hope coll heads prevail, but I am less than optimistic about this outcome.

[Lord Merciless]

It's all about what people value. 100 years it was ample good tasting food and good-looking clothings. 50 years ago was the time of automobile and electrical appliances. 35 years ago it was freedom from everything. 10 years ago it was home ownership for everyone. Now it's about healthcare (diet, weightloss, fitness). If more and more people value their environment, there will be more and more businesses to do something about it.

So instead of trying to destroy the current system and replace it with something potentially worse, why not try to use the strength of the capitalism and make it work for you?

Environmentalists should be primarily spend their time and effort in changing people's perception, as opposed to committing terrorism, daydreaming about the "new" system, or whining about how the reality sucks.

[st_swithin]

America is the land of pissed-off lemmings.

Wouldn't it be funny if we found out 28 Days Later was, in fact, a documentary rather than a fiction?

I'd laugh.

[PeteH]

If you think stone age tribalism is good for the environment then you might as well starve yourself to death.

If by that you mean to imply that starvation was common among stoneage tribes, you should really do a bit of research. In general hunter-gatherer tribes worked far less per calorie of food than any civilized group.

Well, our existance is an uneasy marriage of mammalian pack animal instincts and social insect-style hives. Luckily we are smart enough to be able to sustain this marriage with an unbelievable array of inventions; both material and social.

Actually it is a social mammal existance, just like other primates. It is part of the reason I can no longer take most libertarian concepts seriously, because they assume an existance which goes against several million years of biology. And as far as being able to sustain an existance, that depends greatly on which existance you mean. If you mean the one we had with the world for 99% of our history, then yes, we are quite capable. If you mean the last 8000 years or so of civilized life, then it is by its very nature unsustatinable.

...we strive to create an endless, exponential, growth in an enviornment of limited resources. That's about as self-destructive as you can get. We're constantly increasing the needs we have from our environment while at the same time destroying it at an ever increasing rate.

[st_swithin]

Mammal, mammal
their names are called
they raise a paw
the cat, the bat
giraffe and shrew
the kit and caribou...

[Cruddy]

"Why are humans so self-destructive?"

Oh come now. Suicide is not that common.

Why are so we destructive towards others? Because we're bastards.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by PeteH

If by that you mean to imply that starvation was common among stoneage tribes, you should really do a bit of research. In general hunter-gatherer tribes worked far less per calorie of food than any civilized group.

Really? Where did you get that piece of **** data? Considering that 30 is old age for those societies, I highly doubt people were fed very well.

Of course, if their numbers were few and resources plenty, nobody had to starve. Anytime population hit a certain level, you could imagine what would happen. (starvations, murders, wars, cannibalism, shudder..) But that was how natural population control worked.

[Sandman]

Actually it is a social mammal existance, just like other primates.

Well, the way of life of most humans is quite different from other primates. We're the only primate, and indeed, the only mammal that lives in cities of millions of inhabitants.

Considering that 30 is old age for those societies, I highly doubt people were fed very well.

Massive infant mortality drags the average age down a lot.

[Az]

Originally posted by Osweld


And you're forgeting that we wouldn't need to be discussing environmentalism in such a scenario.

sure we would. Humans changed enviroments by their mere existance, e.g. slash'n' burn, other deforestation, overhunting of the natural species.

Humans changed climates from times immemorial.

[Shirt]

Why are we self-destructive?

"And on the eighth day, God realised that humans were gonna have an ego the size of something scary, so created alcohol so they could piss people off but not remember who to apologise to the following day."

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel

sure we would. Humans changed enviroments by their mere existance, e.g. slash'n' burn, other deforestation, overhunting of the natural species.

Humans changed climates from times immemorial.

But you where talking about a scenario where we didn't do that.

Or atleast I thought you where. It's hard to tell when you keep using ambiguous terms like "change". Do you mean knocking down a tree to make a hut out of sticks and mud, or do you mean clearcuting a forest to make novelty jesus figurines? I don't know.

[Az]

Even in very primitive life, a forest cannot sustain the lumber needs of a sedentary population. Therefore, over the years, there WILL be deforestation, no matter what. It will be a tad slower, but still, on the scale of the history of life it will be miliseconds.

slash and burn isn't progress, too, unless you're considering the taming of fire, and any form of agriculture, progress.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel
Even in very primitive life, a forest cannot sustain the lumber needs of a sedentary population. Therefore, over the years, there WILL be deforestation, no matter what. It will be a tad slower, but still, on the scale of the history of life it will be miliseconds.

I suppose you're going to accuse beavers of clear cut logging, next? There's nothing wrong with taking what you need to live form the environment, that's what all animals do, and it's usually a vital part of the ecosystem. What's wrong is when you take what you don't need, so that you can bring in higher net profits and production numbers then you did the year before and impress the shareholders. Especially since you have to do it EVERY YEAR. That's what exponential growth is, and if natural climate change happens in milliseconds, then the sort of exponential climate change we're creating happens in picoseconds. You log 20 hectares of forest one year, and you have to log 40 the next to keep your profits rising and meet the demands of the increasingly decadent consumer market. And then you have to log 80 the next year, and 160 the next after that. And before you know it, you're on the verge of cutting down all the forest that's left and no one knows what to do - maybe someone comes up with the idea to plant new trees after they cut them down, but what good does that do when the demands continue to multiply? It just buys another picosecond and prolongs the inevitable.