this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
34 points (100.0% liked)
World News
895 readers
288 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
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).