• omnius@lemmy.world
      37·
      11 months ago

      Definitely not optimal with what seems to be the domestic cow as one of the cards at the top.

        • omnius@lemmy.world
          613·
          11 months ago

          Beef is not a staple food, it’s a luxury and it’s destroying the climate.

          • h34d@feddit.de
            121·
            11 months ago

            You’re not wrong about the second half of your sentence, but it is quite common, unfortunately. Besides, I think the cow in the picture is meant to be representative for the entire meat industry, not just beef (other meats are still terrible for the climate, of course, just not as bad as beef).

    • Zalack@startrek.website
      111·
      11 months ago

      Even though things seem shitty now. I think that, on average, humanity’s story is one of self-improvement. This Good Place quote comes to mind:

      What matters isn’t if people are good or bad. What matters is if they are trying to be better today than they were yesterday.

      I think humanity is trying to be better today than it was yesterday. Human history is a story of more and more types of people being given more and more rights. Of slowly putting down our rocks and spears and guns and trying to live together. Of learning to care for nature while holding the power to destroy it. We’ve had backslides, but overall we’ve come a long way from the Apes we once were.

      I think humanity deserves the chance to keep trying to better itself. I hope we get to the point where we are good enough to give ourselves that chance. As another scene from Good Place put it:

      Come on dummy, faster.

        • XEAL@lemm.ee
          1·
          11 months ago

          I will bite and answer seriously:

          It will have no impact on others, and even it did, it would be minimal.

          However, suicide rates sometimes spike when someone famous comits die and with that it hasn’t brought mankind cose to extinction.

        • Zhao
          61·
          11 months ago

          I’m a follower, not a leader. You go first.

        • XEAL@lemm.ee
          2·
          11 months ago

          Yeah sure, let me just launch the nukes that I don’t have in a second. Or I could release the *NEW* COVID-23 DS Pro Plus Black Edition… aww fuck I don’t have a lab either to create a lethal virus.

          Sorry, can’t do at the moment.

    • Sigh_Bafanada@lemmy.world
      5·
      11 months ago

      I’m kinda thankful that even if we kill ourselves off and most life on Earth, it’s almost certain that life will come back in full eventually. We’d have to do some real Earth -shattering stuff to prevent that.

      • Fapp@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        42·
        11 months ago

        I argue this point all the time and no one ever likes it. In order to eternally prevent as much suffering as possible, we need to cause a vacuum decay event. Otherwise something is always going to evolve to take humans place and then we’re in the same shitty boat.

        Edit: just realised you were saying that was bad, oof

        • volodymyr@lemmy.world
          2·
          11 months ago

          That’s nice because it is always hard to find motivation for fundamental sciences. Stopping all suffering for good is so honorable! Particle physisics should include it in grant proposals.

    • Demuniac@lemmy.world
      11·
      11 months ago

      You wouldn’t directly no. Except it’s food for a lot of animals and would be a huge problem soon enough

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    3·
    11 months ago

    Can someone make the connection for me between mass insect die-off and civilizational collapse? Whenever I see this implied there’s research cited about why we should believe insects really are in trouble, but the rest of it is always handwaved. I looked it up and it seems like a large portion of crops do not actually require insect pollination. So wouldn’t that mean we would survive, albeit somewhat worse off, even if much of the ecosystem does not? Am I missing something here?

    • 80085@lemmy.world
      4·
      11 months ago

      Every species is a food, resource, predator, or competitor for resources for another species, so a decline of one species can have ripple effects on many other species. I guess one example is that parasitic wasps keep caterpillars and aphid populations in check (caterpillars and aphids can cause huge crop losses).

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        3·
        11 months ago

        I get that there are ripple effects, and that some of them might be unexpected, but I don’t see how it could translate into an apocalyptic scenario for human agriculture. If there was somehow an increase in the population of pest species, why wouldn’t variations on the techniques we already use for dealing with those (which mostly do not rely on other animals) ultimately work to handle it, at least enough to feed everyone?

        • 80085@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago

          Pesticides are becoming less effective; pests are becoming resistant to them resulting in reduced yields across the world. Many conventional farms are now starting to use integrated pest management which involves biological pest control (which involves using and creating habitats for beneficial organisms to control pests).

          IDK, maybe civilization can figure out a way to survive during massive ecological collapses, but it would be hard, and we don’t have to.

  • aidan@lemmy.world
    2·
    11 months ago

    The thing is when populations are near extinction they have been at low enough levels usually to see what the effects are of their extinction for a long time. Furthermore no complains about random tiny species of bacteria going extinct even though overall bacteria are extremely vital to ecosystems

  • Norgur@kbin.social
    1215·
    11 months ago

    One exception: wasps. Those useless stupid motherfuckers can go extinct. Fuck’em.