• Neshura@bookwormstory.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    By your definition nothing is ever fixable because you can’t ever fully remove the possibility that your choices have some unknown effect. A perfect solution never exists so looking for one is idiotic, we can only model the problem with our current knowledge and work on fixing it with that. Compared to other animal life I say we’re even doing a good job at it, so far we haven’t gone extinct despite being the predominant life form pretty much everywhere. Other animals would’ve ran into major problems sustaining themselves within two or three generations were they in our position. So unless you have some way to solve our problems that doesn’t involve regressing back to the stone age I think the “fix it now, worry about the new ways we broke it later” approach is the only workable solution we have on hand right now.

    • schmidtster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes tell that to everyone dying of lead poising, with mesothelioma from asbestos and micro plastics in their brain….

      Maybe instead of killing our future generations for the sake of “progress” we should think of our preserving what little is left before it’s too late since we tried fixing too many preventable issues?

      • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aight, do the first step then.

        Ultimate solution to human pollution. My guess is, you won’t like it though.

        You mention all the people suffering from mesothelioma, from lead poisoning and micro plastics but you fail to mention the lives saved from penicillin, the people saved from starvation due to nitrate fertilizer and pesticides. The mothers saved because of X-Rays and other tests during pregnancy. You can’t pick and choose all the bad stuff whilst ignoring the good that came from the same system. You can’t have your cake and eat it too and so far innovating and worrying about the consequences later has worked out better than not doing that.

        • schmidtster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I didn’t fail to mention anything. I’m pointing out the fallacies in your arguments, I know there’s lots of good that have come from quite frankly atrocities when viewed from a certain viewpoint.

          You lost all credibility when you claimed chemistry is the same even if the environment is different.

          • Neshura@bookwormstory.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You lost all credibility when you claimed chemistry is the same even if the environment is different.

            So you think it suddenly turns into some different science because the environment changes? That we can’t apply it anymore just because the initial state is different? Not how that works. The rules stay the same even if the input changes. We can take the atmospheric composition and replicate it in a lab to see how something would react in the atmosphere. Unless some parameter is missed that will be exactly what would happen in the atmosphere. There is only one step where the laws of science suddenly change and it’s not with the location of chemical substances.