Thank you for saving my credibility. Not that I actually knew that.
JubilantJaguar
joined 2 years ago
The concept of "white folks" is entirely unscientific, it's an American cultural construction.
But yes, I am indeed saying that we just need to give other cultures time and we will all end up at the same destination. I don't essentialize humans by their arbitrary racial characteristics.
really don’t care bout you accusing me of
I'm not accusing you, I'm accusing us. Big difference. If you're doing your bit, that's great. Imagine how different things would look if everybody cared as much as you. Unfortunately they don't. Presumably you'll say they have busy lives, they're exploited by their capitalist bosses etc etc, so it's not their fault. All I see is a lot people saying "it's not their fault", "it's not our fault", "it's not my fault".
This has never happened until the 1700s, which is around the time that colonization was in full swing. Then modern medicine came along. Before that, population growth was pretty stable.
But "stable" population growth does not exist, by definition. It's no different from the economic variety: even 1% is exponential and will therefore prove unsustainable, since the ecosystem has not changed in size. And the record is clear. over and over, premodern civilizations have exceeded the carrying capacity of their environments and collapsed. The Amazon has repeatedly been farmed by humans whose numbers then crashed, allowing the forest to regrow. The Maya were already hitting the wall when the European colonists arrived. Same everywhere: Africa, the Pacific, and it will happen to all the supposedly harmonious societies you mention. There's nothing specially virtuous about them.
Presumably for the same reason we say Rome and Florence instead of Roma and Firenze. Just as England has been heavily influenced by French culture, all of Europe has seen things through the prism of the Roman Empire.
Your analysis is certainly pretty easy on you personally, though, isn't it? Someone else is to blame, move on. Whenever you take part in modern society - eating meat, driving and flying, buying junk and throwing it away, everything basically - it's someone else's fault, move on. Personally I choose to accept that I also have some responsibility in the matter.
As for the virtuous-native argument, I don't buy that either. For one reason: population growth. A human civilization can never be sustainable unless its population is stable. It's just basic ecology. Well, AFAIK, there is no premodern human society that has mastered this. Their populations are all increasing, just from a lower baseline, since they haven't adopted farming yet. Their impacts may be lower because the absolute numbers are lower, but the trajectory is exactly the same. I know that's not a popular opinion among the race-obsessed modern American left, but I'm a universalist so that's how I see it. The color of people's skin does not exempt them from responsibility. We're all humans, we're all implicated in this endeavor.
Jared Diamond's book Collapse contains an anecdote which is a possible caveat. Apparently some of the premodern societies of the New Guinea Highlands have, in fact, mastered birth control and so managed to stabilize their populations. But AFAIK this is very much an exception. Even if one believes that premodern society - without proper healthcare, mostly patriarchal, often violent - is superior to ours, one still has to contend with the population issue. Humans in my view are all the same. We all want the same thing, we're just progressing at different speeds towards the same reckoning.
The irritable finger-pointing is not very constructive. As you say, we mostly agree on the basics here.
As a plan, "cutting out the greedy fuckers" may sound satisfying but it's a bit of a dead end unless you really are advocating some kind of bloody revolution. And in that case history shows with 100% confidence that, alongside all the misery and suffering, you will just end up with another bunch of greedy fuckers at the top.
The problem is humanity. It's not them, it's us. Unfortunately there's no quick fix for that.
If you really mean "literal Nazis", that tends to support the hypothesis that you're not being exposed to much that contradicts your worldview.
Blocking this, banning that. The result will be a bunch of filter bubbles where people only see what confirms and validates their own prejudices. Echo chambers, as you call them. I agree that this is a better scenario than a cesspool of cynicism and hate and negativity, but surely we can do better.
If the objective is incentivizing good behavior, here's another idea: reward upvoting and make it costly to downvote. Details TBD but other forums have done it and it works.
Interesting insight. If you were on a 500 calorie diet and "bonked" while cycling then presumably it was shortly after a meal, since at that level of calorie restriction you're going to be running mostly on fat reserves directly rather than sugar via glycogen. It is absolutely possible to run marathons without having eating a gram of sugar. The advantage is precisely that you can't hit a wall when the glycogen runs out. But apparently the keto diet is not quite as performant at the margin, which is why athletes haven't all switched to it. It does deal with the hunger issue though, by all accounts.
A setting for default sort order. Let's begin with the basics.