If the technological society we are now surrounded by (dominated by) were to collapse, this would entail great suffering for a great many people - but it would be far better for Nature than if that doesn't happen, right?
If the technological society we are now surrounded by (dominated by) were to collapse, this would entail great suffering for a great many people - but...
You view industrial society as somehow anti-nature, and not just a new biological niche. Yeah, more could be done to encourage biodiversity and yeah pollution is shit; but a lot of species have flourished thanks to humanity whereas before they were pretty irrelevant.
>just a new biological niche
An incredibly shitty niche that replaces thousands of high quality ones
>i don't like it because i have to pay taxes
ok go move to alaska
?
no, because humans will destroy the environment faster, no one is going to take the time to replant trees, rotate crops, or ranch animals
>implying an inhabitable planet for our great grandchildren is better than having air conditioning, mcdonald's, and several billion africans kept alive with artificially fertilized food
Cringe
Until another asteroid hits the earth yeah.
It would probably take a month or two for humans to eat every single animal larger than a mouse into extinction. Also a fair chance the world would be irradiated to the point of killing off a lot of organisms.
but once that died down, yes. It would be better for most organisms and ecosystems to have fewer humans around.
>It would probably take a month or two for humans to eat every single animal larger than a mouse into extinction.
The avg person is too retarded and helpless. I'm sure most woudnt even attempt to leave the city, but even if they did there are pockets of wilderness everywhere that would be near impossible for humans to get to if society were to collapse
>Also a fair chance the world would be irradiated to the point of killing off a lot of organisms.
The wildlife in Chernobyl recovered well in a rapid amount of time
you should come visit america sometime. We love to hunt, there's nowhere we won't go, and we easily have enough guns and ammo to kill every animal on the continent in very short order.
and we realize the animals are going to run out, so on day one we're going out and harvesting all of them in a race with our neighbors. Once the animals are gone we start eating the neighbors.
wow that's such a smart long term plan!
>wow that's such a smart long term plan!
even if we somehow agreed not to kill all the animals on day one, people from outside the area are going to flood in and kill them anyways.
so it's not a plan, it's certainly not a long term plan. It's just what's going to happen if society collapses. Grocery stores are getting raided, farms and factories taken over, ranches will see every animal slaughtered and hauled off. And then we go after the wildlife.
this isn't just the US either. You can expect the same anywhere people exist. Bushmeat has always been a thing, but it's going to get a few billion times more popular. People don't starve to death without a fight.
Ur forgettin that many people would become food for others
It would give nature a great deal of time to heal. But wouldn't the problem be that it would become a boom and bust cycle of technology collapsing and then being rebuilt? Wouldn't that defeat the point?
The industrial revolution can never happen again
"nature" would thank you for your kind thoughts by freezing you to the verge of death and then sic a mountain lion on you so that it can feed your balls to its kids.
Found the retard. "People always died from mountain lions and cold!" Fire is like 2mil yrs old
except that's not what i said. nature doesn't care how nice you try to be to it; it's only trying to selfishly survive like anything else. saying that we need to sacrifice a shitton of humans (this is what you're saying when you say you want a collapse) for the sake of something which gives literally not a single fuck about you is mental, especially when nature will all be erased by a meteor or something at some point anyway.
like why is it good to you that people die so that nature can prosper? unless this entails you taking your own life to reduce impact on nature then you're just saying that other people should die so that the things you like (nature and wildlife) can prosper more.
besides, a collapse would probably only worsen problems. continuing is better than starting over at this point, as birthrates are stable and we're making cleaner and cleaner sources of energy to sustain us. starting over with a potentially larger population expansion and dirty as shit energy doesn't sound smart.
you dipshit, besides you nobody said anything about being nice to Nature
u must be a total fagtard to think "we" need to keep all the present humans around forever. what do i care if strangers die? brainwashed take kid
>"be far better for Nature"
>UHHM I didn't say be nice to mammy nature
you don't happen to live in the inner city without a father by any chance, do ya?
no dumbass i don't
"birthrates are stable" lol get a clue transcuck
"we're making cleaner sources of energy" for what fucking purpose? So you get faster data streaming and we can live like in Wall-E ?
get a clue
>we're making cleaner and cleaner sources of energy to sustain us
No source of clean energy can make up for the amounts of habitat that is being lost, and plastic replacements are still nowhere to be seen
Imagine the industry revolution happened a second time. Unless you kill us all it's just going to happen again
That's assuming there would a) be enough resources to rebuild industrial society and b) people would want to rebuild industrial society after its collapse.
Even if industrial society collapsed for a few centuries that would still give nature some time to recover