so there it is, the entirety of humanities efforts being harvested, all of human intelligence, all of the structure of the universe to contribute to the machines, the fleshy things have non-fleshy machine children, and you’re encouraged to get onboard, invest if you want, it’s big, a big deal.

a lot of people are even happy to accelerate climate change to see the good work proceed more quickly, no small amount of energy is required to power the precocious.

humans have been a force of nature for a long time now, arguably since the industrial revolution was well under way, but it matters not the exact time, more important might be when a stabilizing humility was lost, and would people notice if all retraining modesty were abandoned, enough restraint that way, then the entire thing accelerates into an oblivion of the uncontrollable.

do we secretly covet the larger part of nature which is not us, not human, seek to destroy it, would we…

try restraining modesty, that should be

Bruh it’s like 7:45 am, I’m still on my first coffee.

dv said:

Bruh it’s like 7:45 am, I’m still on my first coffee.

:)

wait yous lot are even awake that early, woke shall we say

transition said:

so there it is, the entirety of humanities efforts being harvested, all of human intelligence, all of the structure of the universe to contribute to the machines, the fleshy things have non-fleshy machine children, and you’re encouraged to get onboard, invest if you want, it’s big, a big deal.

a lot of people are even happy to accelerate climate change to see the good work proceed more quickly, no small amount of energy is required to power the precocious.

humans have been a force of nature for a long time now, arguably since the industrial revolution was well under way, but it matters not the exact time, more important might be when a stabilizing humility was lost, and would people notice if all retraining modesty were abandoned, enough restraint that way, then the entire thing accelerates into an oblivion of the uncontrollable.

do we secretly covet the larger part of nature which is not us, not human, seek to destroy it, would we…

Like the shitty world we see in Blade Runner, which is dead and everything is synthetic
I do wonder how much slower our progress, if we respected life along the way
Lots of bullshit as well about not knowing our impact when that was an outright lie, didn’t care
No excuses now though as we have the ability to minimise our impact if we choose, it requires sacrifice and that won’t happen on a world wide scale.
I give human civilisation as we “enjoy” now 20 years before it collapses
It’s something the think about with the Fermi paradox
Perhaps actual intelligent species kept their progress to a sustainable level and that means no high tech civilisation as the progress to it is extremely dangerous

transition said:

so there it is, the entirety of humanities efforts being harvested, all of human intelligence, all of the structure of the universe to contribute to the machines, the fleshy things have non-fleshy machine children, and you’re encouraged to get onboard, invest if you want, it’s big, a big deal.

a lot of people are even happy to accelerate climate change to see the good work proceed more quickly, no small amount of energy is required to power the precocious.

humans have been a force of nature for a long time now, arguably since the industrial revolution was well under way, but it matters not the exact time, more important might be when a stabilizing humility was lost, and would people notice if all retraining modesty were abandoned, enough restraint that way, then the entire thing accelerates into an oblivion of the uncontrollable.

do we secretly covet the larger part of nature which is not us, not human, seek to destroy it, would we…

Yes.

>do we secretly covet the larger part of nature which is not us, not human, seek to destroy it, would we…

I shouldn’t think so.

Bubblecar said:

>do we secretly covet the larger part of nature which is not us, not human, seek to destroy it, would we…

I shouldn’t think so.

More like we have been oblivious to it.

As a species, I think we are blind to ourselves to some extent, maybe a lot?

Clearing land to scavenge resources and then leaving a mess. Pushes other species into unknown territory they are not prepared for.

Media helps to inform us about the state of Nature, which appears to be in decline due to human causes.

Repatriation of the environment needs more consideration, more long term planning, billions of trees need to be planted, we need to educate up and regreen the planet and drones can help work along side humans to do it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

As a species, I think we are blind to ourselves to some extent, maybe a lot?

Clearing land to scavenge resources and then leaving a mess. Pushes other species into unknown territory they are not prepared for.

Media helps to inform us about the state of Nature, which appears to be in decline due to human causes.

Repatriation of the environment needs more consideration, more long term planning, billions of trees need to be planted, we need to educate up and regreen the planet and drones can help work along side humans to do it.

The tragedy of the commons has been discussed since 1968, or 1833, or Aristotle.

We don’t seem to be getting much better at dealing with it.

“The tragedy of the commons describes a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overuse and deplete a shared resource, ultimately harming the collective.

Definition and Concept
The tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals exploit a shared resource for personal gain while the costs of overuse are distributed among all users. This often leads to depletion or degradation of the resource, even though it is in everyone’s long-term interest to conserve it. The concept was popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, though its roots trace back to Aristotle and earlier economic discussions by William Forster Lloyd in 1833, who illustrated the problem using shared grazing land “

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

As a species, I think we are blind to ourselves to some extent, maybe a lot?

Clearing land to scavenge resources and then leaving a mess. Pushes other species into unknown territory they are not prepared for.

Media helps to inform us about the state of Nature, which appears to be in decline due to human causes.

Repatriation of the environment needs more consideration, more long term planning, billions of trees need to be planted, we need to educate up and regreen the planet and drones can help work along side humans to do it.

The tragedy of the commons has been discussed since 1968, or 1833, or Aristotle.

We don’t seem to be getting much better at dealing with it.

“The tragedy of the commons describes a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overuse and deplete a shared resource, ultimately harming the collective.

Definition and Concept
The tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals exploit a shared resource for personal gain while the costs of overuse are distributed among all users. This often leads to depletion or degradation of the resource, even though it is in everyone’s long-term interest to conserve it. The concept was popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, though its roots trace back to Aristotle and earlier economic discussions by William Forster Lloyd in 1833, who illustrated the problem using shared grazing land “

It’s certainly something we need to improve about ourselves.

Studying other species that show the same behaviour may help to understand our similar situation in our relationship with Nature.

transition said:

so there it is, the entirety of humanities efforts being harvested, all of human intelligence, all of the structure of the universe to contribute to the machines, the fleshy things have non-fleshy machine children, and you’re encouraged to get onboard, invest if you want, it’s big, a big deal.

a lot of people are even happy to accelerate climate change to see the good work proceed more quickly, no small amount of energy is required to power the precocious.

humans have been a force of nature for a long time now, arguably since the industrial revolution was well under way, but it matters not the exact time, more important might be when a stabilizing humility was lost, and would people notice if all retraining modesty were abandoned, enough restraint that way, then the entire thing accelerates into an oblivion of the uncontrollable.

do we secretly covet the larger part of nature which is not us, not human, seek to destroy it, would we…

No

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

As a species, I think we are blind to ourselves to some extent, maybe a lot?

Clearing land to scavenge resources and then leaving a mess. Pushes other species into unknown territory they are not prepared for.

Media helps to inform us about the state of Nature, which appears to be in decline due to human causes.

Repatriation of the environment needs more consideration, more long term planning, billions of trees need to be planted, we need to educate up and regreen the planet and drones can help work along side humans to do it.

The tragedy of the commons has been discussed since 1968, or 1833, or Aristotle.

We don’t seem to be getting much better at dealing with it.

“The tragedy of the commons describes a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overuse and deplete a shared resource, ultimately harming the collective.

Definition and Concept
The tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals exploit a shared resource for personal gain while the costs of overuse are distributed among all users. This often leads to depletion or degradation of the resource, even though it is in everyone’s long-term interest to conserve it. The concept was popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, though its roots trace back to Aristotle and earlier economic discussions by William Forster Lloyd in 1833, who illustrated the problem using shared grazing land “

It’s certainly something we need to improve about ourselves.

Studying other species that show the same behaviour may help to understand our similar situation in our relationship with Nature.

It’s also something that needs measuring, “How blind are we to ourselves”

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The tragedy of the commons has been discussed since 1968, or 1833, or Aristotle.

We don’t seem to be getting much better at dealing with it.

“The tragedy of the commons describes a situation where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, overuse and deplete a shared resource, ultimately harming the collective.

Definition and Concept
The tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals exploit a shared resource for personal gain while the costs of overuse are distributed among all users. This often leads to depletion or degradation of the resource, even though it is in everyone’s long-term interest to conserve it. The concept was popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin in 1968, though its roots trace back to Aristotle and earlier economic discussions by William Forster Lloyd in 1833, who illustrated the problem using shared grazing land “

It’s certainly something we need to improve about ourselves.

Studying other species that show the same behaviour may help to understand our similar situation in our relationship with Nature.

It’s also something that needs measuring, “How blind are we to ourselves”

It’s obvious to some people but perhaps the majority of the population don’t see it at all or even care if they get the creature comforts they desire.
The beast the world economy doesn’t work with conservation of resources if its continually expanding.
Spreads like gray goo (perhaps less drastic) but spreads out consuming resources and leaving damaged land and ocean behind.

Ian said:

transition said:

so there it is, the entirety of humanities efforts being harvested, all of human intelligence, all of the structure of the universe to contribute to the machines, the fleshy things have non-fleshy machine children, and you’re encouraged to get onboard, invest if you want, it’s big, a big deal.

a lot of people are even happy to accelerate climate change to see the good work proceed more quickly, no small amount of energy is required to power the precocious.

humans have been a force of nature for a long time now, arguably since the industrial revolution was well under way, but it matters not the exact time, more important might be when a stabilizing humility was lost, and would people notice if all retraining modesty were abandoned, enough restraint that way, then the entire thing accelerates into an oblivion of the uncontrollable.

do we secretly covet the larger part of nature which is not us, not human, seek to destroy it, would we…

No

I’m with Ian.

No.

dv said:

Bruh it’s like 7:45 am, I’m still on my first coffee.

I felt that way too, evident in the spelling errors etc

Now, consider you hadn’t had a coffee for like four months, the torture you might externalize and visit on someone

transition said:

dv said:

Bruh it’s like 7:45 am, I’m still on my first coffee.

I felt that way too, evident in the spelling errors etc

Now, consider you hadn’t had a coffee for like four months, the torture you might externalize and visit on someone

20 coffee caravans are on their way.