this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
655 points (98.2% liked)
Political Memes
2741 readers
1200 users here now
Memes for not explicit politics: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ironically, life generally has those cancer cell characteristics.
Is there any population of anything that will self govern it's resource consumption? Or is all life limited by resources and / or predation?
We are the equivalent of an invasive species with no natural predators. Sure, some animals would happily eat us like polar bears and orcas, but we don't live in the Arctic and we don't swim in Orca hunting grounds.
Most organic life lived in a decent amount of equilibrium for millions of years before us ... dinosaurs lasted about 60 million years before they got wiped out be an asteroid. They probably could have lasted millions of more years if they didn't get affected by anything.
Our closest ancestors appeared about two million years ago but they weren't anything like us today. Our most modern ancestors that are exactly like us are only about 50,000 years ago. So, we're still very, very new to the game of life.
We shouldn't be so surprised at our 'success' yet. We're a pretty young species and we may yet figure out a way to wipe ourselves out sooner rather than later and give the next sentient species a chance to restart a new civilization without us.
We are just another iteration .... whether or not we last is anyone's guess. But at the moment, the odds don't look so good.
Tbf, there are equilibrium events where one species whipes another and equilibrium is met. Granted the parasite can usually adapt quicker, and there's so much more we can go down that rabbit hole...
We ain't the earth. She's going to be just fine without us. Even if we nuke the planet, there are still deep sea thermal vent communities that will jump start evolution here by billions of years.
There will also be another intelligent species. Let's hope there are still some shipwrecks left that they can find some non-poisoned iron for their medical equipment.
Sure we will. It might just be an equilibrium that doesn't include us anymore.
I don't think that's a fair comparison.
An ecosystem contains many species at equilibrium, but the ecosystem itself consumes all available resources.
Similarly, companies within a capitalist system maintain a kind of equilibrium, but the system itself will consume all available resources.
But that equilibrium can be maintained by those resources being replenished within the ecosystem through the actions of components of that ecosystem.
In our example, that's not happening. The resources are being exploited and not replaced.
That's true, but it doesn't respond to the point I was making.
The comment I replied to was comparing an entire system to a single component within a system.
The problem is the concept of externalities, which means that capitalism will happily overshoot our sustainable resource base, and then collapse. It's the Minsky Moment at ecological scales.
This seems obvious to me. By definition, an ecosystem includes all inputs.
If you look up dessert rust, you'll start thinking of fungi breaking up rocks as parasitic.