Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmonitor | Hacker News Reader

It's actually survival of the fittest unless you happen to destroy the ecosystem in which you live, in which case you starve to death.

View on HN

Everyone needs their preferred brand of fear-porn I guess, but this one doesn't work on me. I believe in the ingenuity of Humanity to keep itself alive no matter the environmental challenges.

It's the "ingenuity of Humanity" that's causing the collapse, is it not? Our intelligence, or ingenuity, has outpaced our wisdom. Surely the advent of thermonuclear weapons, biological weapons, poisoning ourselves and our ecosystem, is a hint that our little branch of the evolutionary tree is beset with peril of our clever little hands and brains.

We're pretty far from starving ourselves to death.

That's fair, we're living pretty luxuriously right now. It's worth securing the current state of luxury while we can, though.

Slow death is the worst kind. We'd have wonderful lives, our grandchildren may too, but their grandchildren is a ???

I am still amazed that modern fossil fuels only really took off in 20th century.

We found Pandora's box of cheap portable energy. That could be our slow demise.

But who cares, we'll be long dead before it becomes a problem for us.

To paraphrase "1984",

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a bot stuffing a human face - with synthetic tofu - forever.

Tofu of all things doesn't really need to be synthetic. It's the meat eaters who are putting tons of time and effort into making their unsustainable diet possible with synthetic replacements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com