Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Confirmed by science: our species is doomed. [View all]caseymoz
(5,763 posts)90. Don't bother? Sounds like sour grapes.
The fact that we don't bother to live in extreme environments does not mean we can not. It means we do not bother because we have elsewhere to live. Take away those other options, and some of us will move there.
Don't bother? You said it yourself. "It's absurdly expensive." That's totally different than not bothering, and you seem unable or unwilling to translate how expense translates to the real world and what it implies for adaptation.
Expensive likely means humans there have to be supported by specialized, massive labor from people in a friendlier environment who make the equipment for which the colony depends. This is not adaptation.
You could only call people adapted to their environment if they are self-sustaining there. This means people have to either support themselves on raw materials available there: they must then perform manufacturing and food production in the hostile environment. There's one alternative: and that's they have to make at least an even trade for the raw materials, food, or manufactured goods.
If they are being subsidized from the surplus of people living in a friendlier environment, to create an environment similar to the friendly one from which they came, then they're not adapted.
If you continue to keep yourself ignorant of these problems and claim humans are adaptive to anyplace, it means you're just emotionally resistant to my point, for reasons other than facts. You're making an argument from exceptionalism, which is as much of a delusion when applied to humankind as a whole as it is when applied to Americans alone.
There's no point in my continuing this conversation. You've made no other arguments except a reiteration of what you already said, which I already refuted. So, goodbye.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
91 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I came to this conclusion about a year ago. This when I realized it's pretty pointless.
Katashi_itto
Apr 2014
#1
An evolutionary leap, in a positive direction of course, would be the only thing that might save us.
MoonRiver
Apr 2014
#3
Not necessarily - other animals can adapt as well - cockroachs for example will do just fine
el_bryanto
Apr 2014
#5
Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth.
NM_Birder
Apr 2014
#11
"Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth."
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#12
Don't think I have ever done an emoticon. Maybe I have, just don't remember.
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#30
That's sweet. Always happy when I can make someone smile. Have a great day. nt.
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#47
"Humans are the only species that seves zero purpose to the cycle of life on Earth."
NCTraveler
Apr 2014
#55
By your rationale, then to hell with other life species, we will determine what is "natural".
NM_Birder
Apr 2014
#35
You can't separate concepts like "benefit" or "purpose" from your human perspective.
Silent3
Apr 2014
#72
Humans only need technology and "food distribution systems" to live in large numbers...
Silent3
Apr 2014
#70
An estimated 99% of species have gone extinct -- why would humans be different?
FarCenter
Apr 2014
#46
Darwin's theory doesn't have a built in guarantee for long term human survival.
GoneFishin
Apr 2014
#77