245
We live in the capitalocene
(feddit.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
245 points (91.2% liked)
Economics
1850 readers
232 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, the largest expeditor of the problem, but still done by and for an infection.
We still made huge impact to the ecosystems in the past too, it's just that we now no longer destroy only local ecosystems.
Without capitalism, would we still be an infection?
Yes, we consume & change the environment for millennia on a scale and rate (especially rate!) that could be considered an infection as it is absolutely unsustainable, and it permanently changes environments.
We've ended great forests, drained entire bogs, even species millennia ago, under all systems so far.
We never had the mentality of 'don't leave a mark' and and always had the concept of 'trash'.
We've also never had a predator to keep us in check, in fact it is only other humans that keep our numbers in check.
The quantity of humans alone is bound to require so much natural resources that we have a global impact regardless of how we use the current tech we would use (this means enormous areas and natural species subjugated to sustain our needs).
And the same argument about quantity also marks the unmistakable sign of an (unsustainable) infestation - that usually leads to the death of the host.
We needed some 4 million years to get to a billion, and only two centuries to get from a billon to 9 billion.
Infections do not have have the ability to choose to not damage their host. People do have that choice, and many make it.
You are, I think, making a mistake that many people do, in thinking humans should have zero impact on the environment. This is nonsense. Does any other animal have zero impact on the environment? Beavers and wild boars can change entire watersheds! An ecologically aware future is not one where humanity has disappeared, merely one where we have consciously limited our effects on it. Ask a virus to do that.
People have the ability to choose to not damage "the host"?
So we do it willingly?
"Many" when talking for a species is meaningless.
Some brain cancers might heighten some of the brains abilities ... yet I don't think that matters.
Also which humans don't negatively affect kilometres of Earth's surfaces and species for 100s of thousands of years?
Beavers, or any species really, can and do affect experientially all they can. They do that until they are in equilibrium with the ecosystem. Invasive species are perhaps a more clear example of this process.
The relative speed of the process and how fast the environment responds is crucial in the infestation definition.
In any population the initial growth is basically limited only by the resource availability. So any species at some point, especially at the beginning, behaves (and it's evolutionary beneficial to do so) like an infestation, the limits come from the environment, and in complex environment that means other species. That's how ecosystem grow from single species to complex interaction between 1000s of species in more or less stable equilibrium.