ᐅ Gas Prices – Where Is Gas Still Affordable?

chand1986 schrieb:

The comment obviously has a sarcastic core, aiming to point out the oversimplifications in the arguments.

However, I want to address an assumption contained in it: the “death of the planet.”

Despite all the urgency and problems caused by human-made global warming, there seems to be a narrative suggesting that humanity will be extinct in about half a century, or worse, that the entire planet will die if we don’t act quickly.

That is simply nonsense. We won’t destroy the planet anyway; that’s just a metaphor — and a poor one at that.

As for humanity: climate change creates enormous, even life-threatening problems. Salinization of farmland in river deltas, heat waves causing more heat-related deaths, massive migration movements that collide with already populated areas on an overpopulated planet (leading to conflicts), droughts causing food shortages due to crop failures (hunger), and so on.

But none of this will wipe out the entire human species. A species of 8 billion individuals, with humanity’s adaptability and technology, is not going to be wiped out by global warming. What really can happen is that the weakest (economically, technologically) get left behind. That is an ethical disaster. But it is not the extinction of humanity.

Quite cynically and unfortunately true, even if the population drops by half, there would still be as many people as in the late 1970s. If it drops by three quarters, we’d be back to the population of the “Roaring Twenties.”

This is not a wish of mine, but meant to show how far we are from the extinction of humanity, despite all the problems. Actually, it is about the ethical intolerability that such scenarios are even caused, and then others have to clean up the mess.

Exactly.
The concept of the downfall or extinction of humanity, as I understand it, refers to the complete loss of what remains of “humanity” itself—the small remainder of qualities that should distinguish us from the animal kingdom, where indeed the weakest are sacrificed for the survival of the strongest.

And for the absolute misanthropes among us. The conditions under which the "strong" then have to live are also hardly livable. Only the top 0.1% can continue to live completely unaffected as they do today (if at all).

chand1986 schrieb:

What can really happen is that the weakest (economically, technologically) are left behind. That is an ethical disaster.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with you on this, because I have the impression, or believe I know, that the weakest often have a strong belief in a better afterlife. Regardless of whether their ideas about the afterlife (which I do not share, as an atheist) come true, I assume that for such people it might not be so bad to be left behind since, to my knowledge, they believe that something wonderful will come soon and that they will be rewarded for their pain, suffering, and hardships. In my view, it is much worse for "people like me" ;-) who don’t have that belief. ;-)

x0rzx0rz schrieb:

... where the weakest are actually sacrificed for the survival of the strongest.

When it comes to people, in my opinion, those who are perceived as the weakest are not necessarily inferior to or sacrificed by the strongest—for example, if they are convinced that something much better awaits them in the afterlife. I think that really makes them strong, or at least should do so (otherwise it doesn’t make sense ;-) ). I haven’t fully grasped the concept of a better world beyond in all its aspects, but I’m happy for anyone who believes in it and sometimes wonder why they are still here. ;-)

Pinkiponk schrieb:

that it is often the most vulnerable who have a strong belief in a better afterlife.

Pinkiponk schrieb:

that it may not be so bad to be left behind

Pinkiponk schrieb:

that (soon) something really great will come and they will be rewarded for their pain, suffering, sacrifices, etc.

Harsh stuff. It almost has echoes of eugenics.

MayrCh schrieb:

Harsh stuff. It almost has a hint of eugenics.

I can’t see that in the post at all.
It is about illustrating the readiness of a person fighting for survival, with the certainty that their struggle will have a positive outcome either way—meaning overcoming the problem or a peaceful existence in the afterlife.

Pinkiponk schrieb:

I’m not entirely sure I agree with you on this point, as I have the impression, or believe, that often the most vulnerable people have a strong faith in a better afterlife. Regardless of whether their ideas about the afterlife (which I don’t share as an atheist) turn out to be true, I assume it can’t be too hard for such people to be left behind, since they believe that something wonderful is coming soon and that they will be rewarded for their pain, suffering, and sacrifices. In my opinion, it is actually much harder for “people like me” ;-) .

In my view, the supposedly weakest people are not necessarily inferior to or sacrificed by the strongest—for example, when they are convinced that something much better awaits them in the afterlife. I think this actually makes them strong, or at least it should (otherwise it wouldn’t make sense ;-) ). I haven’t fully grasped the concept of a better world beyond life in all its consequences yet, but I am happy for anyone who believes in it, and sometimes I wonder why they are still here. ;-)

Your words can definitely be interpreted differently from how you probably (hopefully) intended them. Or did you forget irony, sarcasm, and other cues? To me, this reads very, very harshly; I urge you to read it again carefully and reflect on it. Then maybe revise it or even delete it—thank you.

Pinkiponk schrieb:

... I sometimes wonder why they are still here. ;-)