/lit/ - Literature

>>15816258
Good.
"Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever."
I will read your article OP.

We've developed technology capable of reversing climate change. I won't blame you for not knowing about it because it's still relatively new, and still probably needs some perfecting and enhancing. But it does exist now.

>>15816258
>we can't imagine what life will be like in 100 years
>therefore we will all be dead
what a selfish and uninspiring worldview

>>15817597
>technology
but that is the problem and not climate change

>>15817597
>We've developed technology capable of reversing climate change.
braaaaaaaaaaaaap buuuuurp aghghghjhghhhh

>>15817597
What did he mean by this?

>>15817901
>>15817915
>NOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST SOLVE PROBLEMS WHAT ABOUT MY HECKIN TREES AND COMMUNERINOS

>>15816258
People literally said the same thing a hundred years ago.

>>15816258
I wish this was true. I doubt it though.

>>15816258
People have been predicting the end of civilization since the first brick was lain in Ur. I wouldn't worry about it.

>>15816258
Spengler predicted the winter of western civilization in about 200 years, and he was writing in the early 20th century. Timelines match.
>>15818320
Yes, and it happened multiple times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4

>>15818378
>Yes, and it happened multiple times.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRcu-ysocX4

Okay fine, but does that even count? When people say "collapse of civilization", I imagine something out of The Road.

>>15816258
Great to know. Tell me that 100 years from now. When you know, it actually happens. Fuck off.

The only thing to truly worry about are asteroids and gamma rays. He should write a book about how we aren’t dropping everything to build a giant anti-asteroid machine.

>>15817992
except they didn't

>>15818378
Cline is a hack

>>15818398
imagine something like a 600 year dark age

>>15818487
Is this supposedly a bad thing?

>>15818494
I guess not. civilization always come back stronger after a lull

>>15817992

100 years ago we still had no idea what out rampant growth would do, we had absolutely no conception of it. If we're talking actual existential threat through ecological catastrophe, try only about 30 years ago.

>>15817597
I am aware, but it's not as great as what you're saying. The person who invented carbon capture says we shouldn't use it.

>>15818507
Not this time. Humans have used up most of the resources, so they can't just do a fresh start. Less dark ages, and more back to cavemen, and we spent far longer as cavemen than we did progressing technology.

>>15818378
really interesting video and interesting article too OP.

the collapse is going to be slow and out of sight which will be the part that will make it continuously hard to talk about. NYC won't flood overnight. honestly the way to talk about it is to talk about the things that already have collapsed because they're proof that it's continuing to happen. the world really does look a lot different than it did 10 years ago.

what the anthropocene types don't put in their worldview is that humanity is going to flee to the internet and air conditioning when the collapse gets really bad. maybe that's only a 50 to 100 year postcollapse world but that's as far as i can see right now. i don't see humanity fully dying out in the next 500 years, we're very resilient. but life will be way different

>>15816258
The same people who have pushed every other psyop post-WW2 are the same ones pushing "too hot for humans". Why would you believe THIS one?

not soon enough tee bee aych

anyone retarded enough to believe climate hoax needs to just off himself already

>>15816258
Much sooner I imagine. I give it another 20 years max until most people on earth are dead.

>>15817597
lol

>>15816258
The sooner the better. If there are 7.5 billion people today and 8 billion in 10 years, if you are a utilitarian then it would be objectively better for 6.5 billion to die than 7

>>15818803
this. mankind will probably regress into a pseudo-feudal state as people return to agricultural lifestyles in the shadows of skyscrapers. which would actually be not an awful future, significant progress was achieved using 1700's technology, and whatever machines continued to work would keep aiding life. just no industrial revolution. people would probably live like this for tens of thousands of years, it would just be sad that our satellites would hang in space, never to be accessed again.
that being said, given the fact that we actually have like 200 years left in accesible oil reserves, our future is probably going to be heat waves and famines around the equator and billions of third worlders causing the sudden destruction of western civilization. china might survive because they'd gun down refugee boats but western empathy and individualism will be our downfall.

There's nothing the left fears more than easy, cheap solutions to climate change. They NEED it to be necessary to impose their morality on other people, they NEED there to be original sin and contrition.

>>15819135
Explain why endless technological development is good and isn’t actually a manifestation of greed, which is a vice

>>15819164
Because "Man is something that is to be surpassed"

Ambition is not vice, it is how mankind becomes more than what it is. Given that God is dead, we must become God to give meaning to the world and justify our existence. By technological development we move forward and become more than beast.

>>15819255
It’s not possible for something to become something else. Also you are taking it for granted that more = good which, unless justified further, is an assumption which I simply reject

>>15816258
Good!

>>15819260
> It’s not possible for something to become something else

You're not even trying to argue anymore you pseud. Things change all the time. You're not addressing my argument, just saying bullshit.
> more = good

Firstly, this is not necessarily about "more" in a simple sense. The point that Nietzsche makes is that our progress opens up the possibility of emergence. That something greater than we can comprehend, something greater than the sum of its parts, will arise as a result of our technological progress. That is the ultimate goal.

Secondly, more goods is by definition good. In economic theory, humans have preferences. A good is something that gives humans utility. Increasing GDP per capita means increasing utility per capita. Try comparing yourself to subsistence farmers in Africa and ask yourself if more is better, or better yet, ask them and see what they say. While the ultimate goal is the emergence of the overman, in the short run development means increased human freedom and utility. Economic growth is growth in human freedom and happiness.

>>15818803
>>15819124
Tell me what vital industrial resources were fully depleted. Iron? Maybe oil? No? What about the coal? Also implying that in two hundred years oil won't be replaced.
Retarded claims. Civilization advanced enough to industrialize wouldn't need to start from the begining -one good archeological discovery would be enough. Most metallic resources as well as plastics can be recycled, fossil fuels can be replaced with alternatives.
>>15819260
Not him, but I reject your assumption about change

>>15816258
I might have been born too late to enjoy space, but at least I get to see civilization collapse.

Oh no, climate change! How scary! But is it worse than corona or transwomen misgendering?