Life on this planet will be OK. Throughout geologic time countless species have gone extinct. The Anthropocene might be tragic for the natural world but not terminal.

But: what are we trading it for? Higher living standards for more people is a noble and good but I don't think there's evidence it requires this rate of ecological destruction. Have we ever seriously tried to decouple growth from extraction?

I'm not convinced a solar punk future exists where technology will eventually close that gap in time. Maybe it will. So far it seems that every efficiency gain gets swallowed by expanded consumption. What seems most probable now is that we don't get a better world but the same dirty one plus a Starbucks on Mars.

▲

metabagel 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The Anthropocene might be tragic for the natural world but not terminal.

I'm not so sure. I'm reminded of this quote:

“How did you go bankrupt?" “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” ― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises

▲

metabagel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Plus, we are in the process of making parts of the earth unlivable for humans.

▲

BurningFrog 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Most of the planet already is unlivable for humans.

	▲	jerlam 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The difference is that the parts we're making unlivable for humans already have millions of people living there already.

▲

fiddeert 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]