Hacker News Reader

Comment by DandyDev | Hacker News Reader

Is that such a bad idea? It's probably better for the majority of the other species that inhabit this planet

Didn't I already defeat you the last time I played Final Fantasy?

As a human, I care a lot more about humans than the other species on this planet. To be clear, I care about the other species on the planet also, but if I have an opportunity to save one human or five dolphins from a burning building...

A dolphin won't shoot you for your phone

Of course they won’t. They have no fingers, nor easy access to guns.

Brb. Designing a dolphin compatible firearm.

We'll see how high and mighty you are when the entirety of order Cetaecea is made equal, and packing, man-thing.

Seriously, anthropocentrism is a habit that can be broken. The fact that people instantly feel badass at the prospect of challenging something unarmed just reinforces my belief in the fact the only universally respected language is violence;and further that equality without the clear and present capability to reciprocate violence is not true equality at all.

I guarantee every person against preserving the Natural Order would object way louder to equipping and enabling the Natural Order to preserve itself.

We are not even close to the most important species, arguably the most detrimental in fact. Unfortunately most people are pretty narrow minded.

I remember this Simpsons episode. "Snorky... Speak... Man..."

Yep. And if we're talking dolphins specifically... They would if they could, we all know it. ;)

Dolphins do some pretty terrible things to humans and other dolphins. If they could use a gun and understood the utility of a phone they probably would.

Probably, but they have no hands. Also! We don't know if raping is a primal urge or a higher function, so they may be Canadians in reality.

This is the dumbest statement i’ve ever seen.

You would prefer to have all your fellow humans die to save the planet.

I’m all for improving things and looking for solutions to the problems we created, but this dumb nihilism serves nothing.

If you think that humans are the problem and we should cease existing, why aren’t you in the ground already?

It's not dumb to suggest the existence of humans might be unsustainable for the entire planet at this point, and it might be a net good if we don't take everything with us. I don't agree with it, but it's not dumb.

Where do we even fix the issue in the U.S. right now? Solar is still out of reach for a lot of people and states refuse to subsidize it. Everything is built so far apart that we need cars. We can't correct our farming practices without starving the country. It's not even nihilism, it's just that we don't have any realistic options right now.

Convince enough voting Americans that America isn't #1 at everything and can in fact learn from other nations and improve things by copying what they do.

For example, the low-end supermarket brand here in Berlin actually sells fresh fruit and vegetables, so we don't get the "food deserts" that the US suffers from (or if they do exist, nowhere near as severely): https://www.aldi-nord.de/sortiment/obst-und-gemuese.html

They also sell micro-PV systems for people renting apartments: https://www.aldi-onlineshop.de/p/plug--play-balkon-kraftwerk...

And a nation-wide (non-express) public transport pass costs €49/month.

Man, it's going to suck when the world ends in a fiery ball of death because some americans somewhere decided "Meh, we'll never fix the problems in this country, not worth trying".

Then you misunderstand my comment. The point is not to say we shouldn't try, the point is that we need to get real about what needs to be done. If we approach everything from "How do we fix this without inconveniencing ourselves, because we're the most important thing on this planet?" then we are screwed.

>why aren’t you in the ground already?

That's the dumbest statement i've ever seen, why are you equating 1 person to 8 billion people?

You wouldn’t take someone who proposed any other climate intervention they wouldn’t commit to themselves seriously, would you?

Individual death is not the same as an extinction. And after doing so they wouldn't be able to spread their idea, they'd be removing themselves from any ability to intervene.

A more appropriate response that still points out their absurdity would be to ask why they aren't committing any mass murders.

I asked a question, I didn't indicate preference.

Also, if my statement is the dumbest you have ever seen, you haven't seen many statements....

Reply on news.ycombinator.com