this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
34 points (100.0% liked)
World News
900 readers
310 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People with close to zero techology about to die out.
No? Really?
They've been a healthy part of their ecosystem for probably centuries, if not waaay longer. Now it's their fault that other peoples use their "technology" to destroy that ecosystem?
Sadly, the reason our ancestors thrived is because they spread out and took over their environments instead of being in peaceful cohabitation with it. Adaptation is survival, in most cases.
The mere existence of these peoples is a counterexample to your claim. Hunter-gatherer tribes are part of a well functioning eco-system. It depends on your definition of "thriving", but those peoples survived without "modern technology". That means they must have done something right. They did adapt to their environments very well. Now, an outside agitator (so-called "civilization") is destroying their home ecosystem.
The whole notion of "stages of development" and hunter-gatherer peoples being less "advanced" is a racist story, Europe-ns told themselves to jpstify exploiting and enslaving indigenous peoples.
Disagree. Mass extinctions have always been a part of history and always due to an environmental disaster. Humanity itself was at risk a couple of times, but technology and a whole lot of luck are what saved it.
Living in balance with nature isn't what determines your survival, but the ability and luck to overcome a calamity completely disrupting that balance.
It has little to do with racism and a lot to do with progress. Self-sufficiency even in the darkest of times.
You seem to ignore the fact that this current calamity is completely due to the "civilized" part of society.
That's literally what "survival of the fittest" means. You're contradicting Charles Darwin now.
The cause doesn't change the result. Catastrophies happen with or without us. We accelerated the climate change, but it would have still happened.
For example, Yellowstone supervolcano will erupt, this is a fact. It will destroy a lot of life, whether we'll still be here by that time or not. We cannot stop it, nor can we prevent it. It is an unavoidable calamity. With technology though, we might be able to lessen its impact. Those isolated tribes can't. They have nothing to save them from it. It's that simple.
Survival of the fittest is slightly complicated. Rather to say those that survive are the best equipped for the situation, it's more that those that survive do so thanks to a set of circumstances.
During a drought, those near a source of water are more likely to survive than those further away. During an epidemic, those with better medical care are more likely to survive than those with less.
Someone with diabetes and heart disease in a state of the art hospital is more likely to survive and have descendants than an athlete stuck out in the wilderness. Is the former better than the latter? Not at all. But they have a set of circumstances giving them better odds of survival. Beyond that it's left to what we call luck.
Survival of the fittest isn't about being the best or the strongest, but about having the circumstances which will allow you to survive. Civilizations fall, but individuals rise out of the ashes and build anew. Is it because they're the best? No, it's because they're alive and everyone else isn't.
Context still matters. The first comment insinuated that it was only natural for them to die out sooner or later.
That's climate-deniers bullshit. The rapidity of climate change is the catastrophic bit.
I don't know about the gravity of damage to life on earth of yellowstone erupting. But mass extinctions on a global scale are so rare that this current one is only the sixth one in the whole history of earth. Would yellowstone seriously globally threaten all non-"technological" humanity.
That bit doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. You're not really replying to anything but rather infodumping (stuff that I already knew).
It's almost as if industrial activities are causing environmental stresses which are happening so fast that many species are struggling to adapt, and that those who are most responsible are the most shielded from the effects... Weird huh.
I really hate this "survival of the fittest" lens people are so quickly to jump to in their ignorance; it's so divorced from reality that it's cruel and absurd.
The "WE DOMINATED NATURE BECAUSE WE'RE BIG BAD ~~ALPHA MALES~~ APEX PREDATORS WHO WIN!" mentality is pathetically misinformed to a nearly pathological point.
That's not what this is. Survival isn't at all about that. It's about clawing your way out of disaster in any way possible. This is a complete disaster, for them and for us. We're not shielded at all, but our progress has allowed us to delay feeling the effects, for better and worse. It will also give us better chances to survive it, if possible.
Make no mistake, a collapse is coming to all of us. And survivors will do anything to live beyond it.