7 ms·

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Yes the planet is doomed sooner or later. But I'm talking about nature as in trees, animals, etc. Th

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. Yes the planet is doomed sooner or later. But I'm talking about nature as in trees, animals, etc. The natural eco-system. And it existed and evolved and adapted naturally long before humans and will continue long after we're gone. In philosophy there is a debate regarding the meaning of the word nature and if humans should be considered a part of it, and I see the points, but that's a different discussion.

GlickWick 1mo ago
My point is the whole "nature existed and will continue to exist" thing is honestly trite. Nature created us, we're just another output in the universal system. There's no real point behind the whole statement that nature will exist without us, and it contributes nothing to any discussion besides unnecessary smugness.
- worksonmine 1mo ago
  Of course there's reason to discuss if endless parking lots and industrial complexes are necessary. Claiming they're part of nature is like claiming HIV is a natural part of the human body. It exists yes but maybe we're better off without it? I see humanity as it exists today as a cancer on the planet and it's not out of smugness. The pursuit of infinite growth is ruining everything that's beautiful around us. We can discuss the semantics of the word nature all you want but it is just shifting the focus from the actual problem, which is how we destroy everything we touch. Which is also what I'm assuming GP means.
  - GlickWick 1mo ago
    There's a difference between discussing our impact on the environment vs. the silly "lol nature will outlive us" stuff, which contributes nothing.
    - worksonmine 1mo ago
      It's the takeaway from the story in OP and the poem with the same title, so I'd say it's very much on-topic. Your only contribution is "acktually, humans are nature too and once the universe collapses everything is doomed" and shut down any other discussion as "silly".

GlickWick 1mo ago

My point is the whole "nature existed and will continue to exist" thing is honestly trite. Nature created us, we're just another output in the universal system. There's no real point behind the whole statement that nature will exist without us, and it contributes nothing to any discussion besides unnecessary smugness.

worksonmine 1mo ago
Of course there's reason to discuss if endless parking lots and industrial complexes are necessary. Claiming they're part of nature is like claiming HIV is a natural part of the human body. It exists yes but maybe we're better off without it? I see humanity as it exists today as a cancer on the planet and it's not out of smugness. The pursuit of infinite growth is ruining everything that's beautiful around us. We can discuss the semantics of the word nature all you want but it is just shifting the focus from the actual problem, which is how we destroy everything we touch. Which is also what I'm assuming GP means.
- GlickWick 1mo ago
  There's a difference between discussing our impact on the environment vs. the silly "lol nature will outlive us" stuff, which contributes nothing.
  - worksonmine 1mo ago
    It's the takeaway from the story in OP and the poem with the same title, so I'd say it's very much on-topic. Your only contribution is "acktually, humans are nature too and once the universe collapses everything is doomed" and shut down any other discussion as "silly".