Yes, we consume & change the environment for millennia on a scale and rate (especially rate!) that could be considered an infection as it is absolutely unsustainable, and it permanently changes environments.
We’ve ended great forests, drained entire bogs, even species millennia ago, under all systems so far.
We never had the mentality of ‘don’t leave a mark’ and and always had the concept of ‘trash’.
We’ve also never had a predator to keep us in check, in fact it is only other humans that keep our numbers in check.
The quantity of humans alone is bound to require so much natural resources that we have a global impact regardless of how we use the current tech we would use (this means enormous areas and natural species subjugated to sustain our needs).
And the same argument about quantity also marks the unmistakable sign of an (unsustainable) infestation - that usually leads to the death of the host.
We needed some 4 million years to get to a billion, and only two centuries to get from a billon to 9 billion.
While i agree with you overall, i’d like to point out a few things.
First of all, “growth” is not a purely human concept. If you believe in the theory of evolution (which I advise you to do), all life strives for (evolutionary) growth sooner or later. That is why saying “humans are exceptionally bad because they spread like crazy” is in itself a false thought - all life does that.
The question is: Is humanity’s rule over the planet justified? In other words, do we have a large enough advantage to all life on Earth that we can reasonably occupy almost all inhabitable land area? What is the advantage that we bring to life?
As i said earlier, all lives ultimately strives towards evolutionary growth. Humans can aid that cause by making life multiplanetary. Don’t get me wrong, i’m not at all a Musk fanboy. But i believe in this single point: Similar to how birds can carry plants seeds to far-away islands, humans can carry all life to other planets and provide it with an essential opportunity for growth. That is why i see it as “humanity has also some very big advantages to life on Earth in general” besides “humanity causes the largest mass-extinction in a long time”. Both are true.
Yeah probably if we took the immediate means of production and just tried to socialise them. Idk if doing what Lenin did back in the day would work now (just copying capitalist production and socialising it.)
Well, the largest expeditor of the problem, but still done by and for an infection.
We still made huge impact to the ecosystems in the past too, it’s just that we now no longer destroy only local ecosystems.
Without capitalism, would we still be an infection?
Yes, we consume & change the environment for millennia on a scale and rate (especially rate!) that could be considered an infection as it is absolutely unsustainable, and it permanently changes environments.
We’ve ended great forests, drained entire bogs, even species millennia ago, under all systems so far.
We never had the mentality of ‘don’t leave a mark’ and and always had the concept of ‘trash’.
We’ve also never had a predator to keep us in check, in fact it is only other humans that keep our numbers in check.
The quantity of humans alone is bound to require so much natural resources that we have a global impact regardless of how we use the current tech we would use (this means enormous areas and natural species subjugated to sustain our needs).
And the same argument about quantity also marks the unmistakable sign of an (unsustainable) infestation - that usually leads to the death of the host.
We needed some 4 million years to get to a billion, and only two centuries to get from a billon to 9 billion.
While i agree with you overall, i’d like to point out a few things.
First of all, “growth” is not a purely human concept. If you believe in the theory of evolution (which I advise you to do), all life strives for (evolutionary) growth sooner or later. That is why saying “humans are exceptionally bad because they spread like crazy” is in itself a false thought - all life does that.
The question is: Is humanity’s rule over the planet justified? In other words, do we have a large enough advantage to all life on Earth that we can reasonably occupy almost all inhabitable land area? What is the advantage that we bring to life?
As i said earlier, all lives ultimately strives towards evolutionary growth. Humans can aid that cause by making life multiplanetary. Don’t get me wrong, i’m not at all a Musk fanboy. But i believe in this single point: Similar to how birds can carry plants seeds to far-away islands, humans can carry all life to other planets and provide it with an essential opportunity for growth. That is why i see it as “humanity has also some very big advantages to life on Earth in general” besides “humanity causes the largest mass-extinction in a long time”. Both are true.
Yeah probably if we took the immediate means of production and just tried to socialise them. Idk if doing what Lenin did back in the day would work now (just copying capitalist production and socialising it.)