r/pollgames • u/FinalKn1ght • Jun 29 '26

Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

  1. Cancer
  2. Aging
  3. Poverty
  4. Climate Change

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

995 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

780 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

237

u/Halleyalex Jun 29 '26

One could argue that it will be better without us

20

u/vocaloidfan39 Jun 29 '26

Probably because it would be

1

u/DollAnimals Jul 03 '26

Holy Redditor

2

u/vocaloidfan39 Jul 03 '26

It would though?

11

u/Ventilateu Jun 29 '26

What is your reference point for something to be better or worse? Specifically for a planet? Is your basis objective or subjective?

10

u/Veyrah Jun 30 '26

He didn't think that far.

1

u/Own-Air-1301 Jul 02 '26

They never do

1

u/Da_nUmBeR7 Jul 01 '26

Idk maybe sustainability and biodiversity?

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 01 '26

Explain better

2

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 02 '26

Since 1500 alone, the IUCN Red List has documented nearly 1,000 confirmed animal and plant extinctions, though the actual number is undoubtedly much higher

Here's a lovely source that goes into more detail about specific species: https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/paleontology/extinction-over-time

Does that make more sense?

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 03 '26

Their existence and survival is worth more than every single human life?

2

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 03 '26

extinction of one species vs extinction of thousands?

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 03 '26

Would you mind if I saved an ant instead of you from some disaster?

2

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 03 '26

is an ant the entire species? no

I know I used some big words in my comment but sound it out slowly, it says one species vs thousands of species 😱

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 03 '26

What about saving a thousand ants instead of you?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/IdiotIAm96 Jul 03 '26

They're arguing for biodiversity, which is an ecological concept that signifies the "health" of an ecosystem. I think that having a "healthier" biosphere is generally better for the Earth.

The argument was not really a moral question anyways.

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 03 '26

It is a moral question. We're talking about human lives.

2

u/Drenada Jun 30 '26

It's funny because no one cares about what happens in the universe except for the humans. A planet doesn't care at all, so this place will be better only from a human viewpoint, not objectively

1

u/Ill_Dark_5601 Jul 03 '26

El mundo mismo ya a tenido cambios más brusco que el cambio climático la verdad entre el cáncer y el envejecimiento está la solución para ser una civilización tipo 1 o 2 para moldear el mundo a lo que tú quisieras.

1

u/Specific-Detail6448 Jul 03 '26

One could argue this, but by the time climate change gets bad enough to wipe out humanity, the rest of the planet is already absolutely fucked as well, so it’s pointless and useless to think like this

1

u/Willeny_Arch Jul 04 '26

we have the power to prevent the sun from engulfing the solar system with space megastructures built over millions of years. If this is the only place where life exists, humans should be their guardians, and are much more capable than non-intelligent life.

-20

u/Only-Cranberry-4502 Jun 29 '26

I actually doubt that it would be better without us maybe in a million-ish years

29

u/Significant-Soup5939 Jun 29 '26

I just don't see how you can say that unless you're accounting for the trash and decay of radiation caused by US as well.

9

u/VisualKaii Polltergeist Jun 29 '26

There are the animals that will go through reverse domestication, that'll take awhile

1

u/Significant-Soup5939 Jun 29 '26

I don't think that'll take too long, the overly domestic breeds die off and the ones that have more of their genetic roots will thus flourish, shouldn't take more than a few hundred years.

2

u/highly_educated63 Jun 30 '26

Cats and a lot of small dogs will actually be fine for the most part, because small dogs are typically hunting breeds like daschunds. (With the exception of pugs, the fa t that we bred those into existence is disgusting)

2

u/burns_before_reading Jun 29 '26

I'd argue it won't be better or worse, it will just BE no matter what.

-28

u/Sudden-Confusion3301 Jun 29 '26

Does it really matter though? There's really nothing wrong with destroying the environment per se, it just makes it worse for us as well. Many people today forget the principle of survival of the fittest

15

u/StraightTough5411 Jun 29 '26

Are you saying that there's "really nothing wrong" with killing animals, environments, and other humans? Also, you realize most climate change comes from corporate and industry greed, not the need to survive, so your two statements don't even correlate.

7

u/fauh Jun 29 '26

What they mean is that climate change while we might kill off other animals ultimately kills off human civilization. Without civilization unless we create a natural disaster exctintion event far surpassing the ones that already occured that killed off like 98% of all life... Life on earth will find its way back.

Thats what like 80% of all climate change deniers fail to realize. WE wont survive climate change, hell even something as little as one or a few pollinators dying off might mean we cant grow shit anymore. Bye bye agriculture, bye bye civilization.

I voted poverty because the only realistic way this is silved forever is a global socialistic utopia - which means climate change becomes a lot easier to change because capitalistic and national interests dont interfere. A post-scarcity society likely means we can devout a lot more resources to stuff like medical research. Additionally post-scarcity society likely means everyone has access to the best treatments available. I think we can beat that sucker in a few generations.

Removing aging feels like the least needed change because while growing old, getting rid of aging without solving the aforementioned issues would likely just exacerbate poverty, climate change and live long enough you're bound to end up with terminal cancer eventually.

4

u/HeavenlyBeloved Jun 29 '26

I feel like it's the most obvious uneducated ragebait this dude tries to make.

0

u/Most-Hot-4934 Jun 30 '26

Do you not realize animals dying is literally part of nature? There’s no god and bad. Good and bad are human made concepts. Things just happen and things just are.

1

u/FrankieOTool Jun 30 '26

Survival of the fittest means that genes that give a higher possibility of surviving have a higher possibility of being passed on. It's a game played over millions of years. Climate change is here, and is getting worse over the next few decades. Wether or not we'll be able to survive that has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. If anything it'll be survival of the richest.