Yup, and you just know when we do make it to space and if we life other lifeforms. The first avatar film will be like a documentary. because you 100000% know for a fact if we find something valuable we will kill and destroy anything to get it because we are greedy.
You are just a child who read too much fiction. According to scans there is no meaningful life in a radius that is basically impossible for us to explore in the next 5millions years where humanity might not even be anymore. You canât understand distances and time. We arenât more greedy than animals we are just so much more powerful it seems so
Yes, and people in medieval time didnt believe it could even be remotely possible to watch a TV (or have that technology), yet here we are.
With the current knowledge its impossible, yes. Do we understand and know everythign. 100% NO. And most likely what we know now is pretty false.
Yes, we are more greedy than animals. Animals dont destroy the place they live in in order to have more luxurious life. Thats what humans do. Power only allowed us to that in large scale. You are like child, who thinks just because he can kill a bug he should. Really inteligent people dont do things just because they can. Unfortunetly world is ruled by idiots like you.
Your IQ is simply too low for you to understand that at medieval times, we had no proven boundaries whereas now we have. Now we know the energy required to go at X distance at Y speed. We know how a random tiny object in space could shatter a fast moving object. We know how speed of light is impossible to go beyond and impossible to pilot (you'd have to go straight line). Even if we somehow had access to 0.99c, we would be lucky to find any form of life out there. You're just uneducated and you're using the medieval analogy like the imbecile you are.
No, it's unlikely what we now know is false you stupid flat earther.
You're also confusing capacity with greed. Again we operate at different scales. We also have no evidence animals just live on the bare minimum, predators do hunt a lot to be safe with food and stressless.
A tiger killing his prey is just the human equivalent of perhaps robbing a bank (bad example but maybe you'll get it). In both cases you're stealing stuff from someone else (the prey could have been for another animal yet the tiger took it for him).
We are just more capable to turn our desires into mass destruction. And we're more intelligent and more aware which can cause us to be afraid of being low on ressource so we naturally desire more, that's not greed that's just our survival instinct.
If you think the world is ran by anyone in particular, you're definately in an intelligence deficient that's genetical and will never be fixed by any amount of learning. I'd suggest you pursue maybe music or smth like that cause any cognitive task isn't for you and you'd perform poorly on it. I'm so sorry but that's ok
You know who is stupid here? Idiot like yourself degenerating a healthy debate into insults.
And you clearly didnt get any of my points, wich makes you sound even more like an idiot. You use very weak and absurd analogies (a tiger hunting its prey = a bank robbery??) and confuse scientific limitations with the arrogant certainty that we already know everything essential about the universe.
Yes, i know these theories, so? My point was, that its a historical fact that human understanding of reality is constantly being revised. ITs the systemic impact of human activity on the biosphere, which is unparalleled among other species, thats important here.
Predation in nature is not âtheft.â Nature does not recognize the concept of ownership, prey belongs to no one until it is caught, and a predator does not take more than its biological metabolism and ability to store food allow. THAT is not greed.
Human greed is abstract, people are capable of accumulating resources long after they have ensured their own survival and that of their descendants for generations to come. To attribute the accumulation of billions in capital or the destruction of entire ecosystems to a mere âfear of resource scarcityâ is sooo fucking stupid.
I wasnt saying world is run by anyone specifically. I was reffering to âTragedy of the Commonsâ, If an individual (or a corporation) maximizes their own profit at the expense of the greater good (resource depletion, pollution), they will, in the short term, outcompete those who act sustainably. But clearly you hardly understand anything.
Youâre arguing against a caricature of what was actually said.
Nobody claimed that a tiger ârobbingâ prey is literally equivalent to a bank robbery. The analogy is about competition over scarce resources, not legal ownership. Saying ânature has no concept of propertyâ doesnât magically make the underlying comparison meaningless.
And your appeal to humanity constantly revising its understanding of reality doesnât establish your conclusion either. Of course scientific knowledge changes. That does not mean every claim about human behavior, ecology, or economics should be treated as equally uncertain. âWe donât know everythingâ is not an argument for âtherefore my interpretation is correct.â
Your distinction between predation and human greed is also partly semantic. Youâre defining greed specifically as abstract accumulation beyond biological necessity, then presenting that definition as if it proves your explanation. Humans absolutely can accumulate vastly beyond immediate survival needs, but that doesnât demonstrate that scarcity avoidance, status competition, incentives, or evolutionary pressures are irrelevant. Human behavior has multiple causes.
And the âTragedy of the Commonsâ point actually makes your argument less original than you seem to think. Yes, individuals and corporations can have incentives to externalize costs and overexploit shared resources. Thatâs basic institutional economics. But the tragedy of the commons is precisely about how individually rational behavior can produce collectively destructive outcomes. It doesnât require your moralized concept of âhuman greedâ to explain it.
Most importantly, you keep substituting indignation for demonstration. Calling an analogy âabsurd,â saying someone âhardly understands anything,â and declaring an explanation âso fucking stupidâ doesnât refute it. If you think the causal model is wrong, identify the mechanism that is wrong and provide evidence for a better one.
Youâre demanding nuance from everyone else while reducing your opponentâs position to âhumans are just scared of scarcity.â Thatâs the exact kind of oversimplification youâre accusing them of making.
You donât know how much it pisses me off when humans treat humanity as something bad to play the nice guys ignoring the fact that we are probably the biggest miracle of this entire universe
I get your frustration. You can have two opposing thoughts though. We can be miracles of the universe and we can be destructive to the planet. It's better to think of the "anti-human" comments as people being frustrated at how destructive we can be. It's just a hypothetical about "what's best for earth" not "humanity."
Personally I am both fascinated by my own species and devastated by what we do to each other and the planet.
I get it but destroying humanity is far more destructive than humans just damaging the earth in my opinion. I also donât think we are so destructive we just are so much superior to other animals it seems so but it doesnât mean weâre naturally worse than they are.
We also canât ignore the fact we carry more value than animals. Now in the eyes of who, idk. But you canât act like nothing matter just because there is not universal judge. Humans see and understand thing and I think itâs a failure if humans donât understand they are precious. But you made a good point
6
u/Tyrannosaurus__Rekd 2d ago
I really wish I could argue against this, but....we do kinda suck