yeah, but Y SO depressed? Life is a continuous cycle. Anything you'll do will be extrememly repetitive, eventually. Regardless of what you do and where you do it -you'll always repeat it. Some say you even reincarnate in the same pattern. The escapes are either reach enlightment and stop karma, or just find something fascinating to do, something you could dedicate your whole life to and feel good about it.
And off topic -it's not that the ignorance is bliss, but the less you ponder about existential questions that will never have answers the less troubled you become. Personal experience.
Fair enough, on the smaller scale - you're right. If you zoom in even more, lunch is over when you finish eating it. Although you'll probably have a few thousands of other meals in the future. I won't argue on a point of few, but the extinction of a certain species doesn't mean the end of life universally.
I agree that the extinction of one species doesn't mean the end of life universally. Another specie(s) should adapt and / or evolve to fill the vacated niche, eventually. However, on a larger scale, we are (collectively) causing a mass extinction event through our sheer numbers, our alteration of environments and our insatiable greed.
Some people argue that even if we cause ourselves to become extinct (which is where we're headed right now), another specie will evolve to fill our niche. I disagree with that viewpoint. Should we continue on the path we're on, we will do irreparable harm to too many species, which took billions of years to get to where they are now, and there is simply not enough time for nature to recover back to something similar to the biodiversity of life we (still) have today.
Wouldn't it be far simpler to simply limit our own reproduction, and reduce our population back to sustainable numbers?
We're completely heading off(the original)topic with this, but I do enjoy this discussion.
There was a good interview with a local First Nations' representative and he said something along the lines of "Look, we've been here for about 10000 years and you can't see any Indian footprint, but the white man managed to ruin the place in 60 years." he was talking about Northern Alberta oil sands situation.
I second your opinion that our current path will end up in tears, if there's someone left to cry. But I highly doubt that a limited reproduction or even a complete cessation of it(Owen's "Children of Men"?) is even possible within the western Democratic regimes.
So, it just leaves me hoping for some global cataclysm that will throw us back to middle ages (solar flares?). That would probably cause a massive death rate due to our utter dependance on technology, medical care and just genetic laziness.
But that sounds like a half decent post-apocalyptic book, and genertally, not very nice.
Meanwhile we still have a depressed OP that tries to find a goal in an existance that never really had one.
And p.s. I believe that as long as a single celled organisms can still exist in any enviroment, the evolution with take its course, regardless of anything. So, it's gonna be a circle again.
I disagree that we're heading off the original topic, as the original poster of this should begin to realize that there are infinite possibilities, beyond the mundane existence that they portrayed.
Although the First Nations representative is cognizant of environmental destruction / degradation, it is a popular misconception that the First Nations people were environmentally minded. They, in fact did leave a footprint. They were responsible (in part) for the mega faunal extinction in the Americas. Also, several times in Central America and Mexico, they over-exploited their natural resources, and consequently several civilisations collapsed. They regularly burned plains and prairie grasslands extensively, altering these environments. They had also cleared 100's of miles of tropical rainforest on either side of the Amazon, and in other places. Indeed, they did also exploit the bitumen in the Athabaska Tar Sands (to seal their canoes and for other uses), although to a far lesser extent. What many people do not realize, is that Western diseases were introduced to the First Nations people with the first explorers, for which they had little immune resistance. Several catastrophic disease epidemics (primarily smallpox) swept through their populations, vastly reducing their numbers. In the hundreds of years between the first explorations and colonization, nature had a chance to recover from much of their environmental destruction.
It is no longer a question if and when we should limit our reproduction, we must all do this now, if we wish to survive in civilised society. This should be an individual choice. Should people ignore this, eventually it will be mandated, as in China. Historically, it was primarily disease that kept our population in check. We have learned to defeat almost all of these. Quite simply, we can not continue to reproduce uncontrollably, as if these are still present. Think again, if you think so-called Western Democratic regimes are actually democratic. Almost all are Neo-Autocratic.
There is not enough time for life to re-evolve, before the Sun boils away our atmosphere and oceans. We must preserve what we have left.
Is it normal to feel empty?
← View full post
yeah, but Y SO depressed? Life is a continuous cycle. Anything you'll do will be extrememly repetitive, eventually. Regardless of what you do and where you do it -you'll always repeat it. Some say you even reincarnate in the same pattern. The escapes are either reach enlightment and stop karma, or just find something fascinating to do, something you could dedicate your whole life to and feel good about it.
And off topic -it's not that the ignorance is bliss, but the less you ponder about existential questions that will never have answers the less troubled you become. Personal experience.
--
suckonthis9
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Incorrect. Life is not necessarily a continuous cycle. The continuity of renewal of life, can and does end. We call this extinction.
--
Imposturously_yours
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Fair enough, on the smaller scale - you're right. If you zoom in even more, lunch is over when you finish eating it. Although you'll probably have a few thousands of other meals in the future. I won't argue on a point of few, but the extinction of a certain species doesn't mean the end of life universally.
--
suckonthis9
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I agree that the extinction of one species doesn't mean the end of life universally. Another specie(s) should adapt and / or evolve to fill the vacated niche, eventually. However, on a larger scale, we are (collectively) causing a mass extinction event through our sheer numbers, our alteration of environments and our insatiable greed.
Some people argue that even if we cause ourselves to become extinct (which is where we're headed right now), another specie will evolve to fill our niche. I disagree with that viewpoint. Should we continue on the path we're on, we will do irreparable harm to too many species, which took billions of years to get to where they are now, and there is simply not enough time for nature to recover back to something similar to the biodiversity of life we (still) have today.
Wouldn't it be far simpler to simply limit our own reproduction, and reduce our population back to sustainable numbers?
--
Imposturously_yours
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
We're completely heading off(the original)topic with this, but I do enjoy this discussion.
There was a good interview with a local First Nations' representative and he said something along the lines of "Look, we've been here for about 10000 years and you can't see any Indian footprint, but the white man managed to ruin the place in 60 years." he was talking about Northern Alberta oil sands situation.
I second your opinion that our current path will end up in tears, if there's someone left to cry. But I highly doubt that a limited reproduction or even a complete cessation of it(Owen's "Children of Men"?) is even possible within the western Democratic regimes.
So, it just leaves me hoping for some global cataclysm that will throw us back to middle ages (solar flares?). That would probably cause a massive death rate due to our utter dependance on technology, medical care and just genetic laziness.
But that sounds like a half decent post-apocalyptic book, and genertally, not very nice.
Meanwhile we still have a depressed OP that tries to find a goal in an existance that never really had one.
And p.s. I believe that as long as a single celled organisms can still exist in any enviroment, the evolution with take its course, regardless of anything. So, it's gonna be a circle again.
--
suckonthis9
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I disagree that we're heading off the original topic, as the original poster of this should begin to realize that there are infinite possibilities, beyond the mundane existence that they portrayed.
Although the First Nations representative is cognizant of environmental destruction / degradation, it is a popular misconception that the First Nations people were environmentally minded. They, in fact did leave a footprint. They were responsible (in part) for the mega faunal extinction in the Americas. Also, several times in Central America and Mexico, they over-exploited their natural resources, and consequently several civilisations collapsed. They regularly burned plains and prairie grasslands extensively, altering these environments. They had also cleared 100's of miles of tropical rainforest on either side of the Amazon, and in other places. Indeed, they did also exploit the bitumen in the Athabaska Tar Sands (to seal their canoes and for other uses), although to a far lesser extent. What many people do not realize, is that Western diseases were introduced to the First Nations people with the first explorers, for which they had little immune resistance. Several catastrophic disease epidemics (primarily smallpox) swept through their populations, vastly reducing their numbers. In the hundreds of years between the first explorations and colonization, nature had a chance to recover from much of their environmental destruction.
It is no longer a question if and when we should limit our reproduction, we must all do this now, if we wish to survive in civilised society. This should be an individual choice. Should people ignore this, eventually it will be mandated, as in China. Historically, it was primarily disease that kept our population in check. We have learned to defeat almost all of these. Quite simply, we can not continue to reproduce uncontrollably, as if these are still present. Think again, if you think so-called Western Democratic regimes are actually democratic. Almost all are Neo-Autocratic.
There is not enough time for life to re-evolve, before the Sun boils away our atmosphere and oceans. We must preserve what we have left.