[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

No, not at all, just as I don't believe human existence depends on not burning fossil fuels. We have evidence that humanity existed long before fossil fuels were utilized, just that it was nasty, brutish, and short.

Clearly more people exist as a result of fossil fuel exploitation, so that suggests human existence is helped by it, not hindered.



There's no such consensus, and the most well regarded climate scientists make no such existential claims. Science is not the process of consensus; it's the process of making increasingly accurate predictions based on observation.



Sure we can. We thrive despite destabilized weather.



I'll need some help unpacking this a bit more, but I'll take a stab at it anyhow...

I make 2 claims:

1. most of us wouldn't exist if fossil fuels were never exploited
2. human existence does not require use of fossil fuels

So my wants would never even exist if humanity didn't exploit fossil fuels because I'd have never been born. I'm grateful that fossil fuels were exploited resulting in my existence and the resultant wants.

As for humanity's needs, they consist primarily of reproduction, survival, and productive work.



Very true. All technology derives from nature and therefore has a relationship with ecology.

Defining "progress" is the subjective bit.



My viewpoint will always be the default one, so long as humans are around. That viewpoint being the necessity to impact the natural state of the world from one which is less hospitable to human flourishing, to one that is more hospitable to human flourishing.

We could all choose to live in teepees, going around raiding other primitive tribes, and generally having a small impact on nature, but nobody chooses to live that way when given the option.

The law of nature is "dog eat dog", so I am opposed to it. Since industrialism creates cooperation which "overrules" the law of nature, I'm for it. Would rather have a smartphone than someone's scalp adorning my necklace.



I don't think that's a helpful rephrase, and I'm skeptical that you're asking in good faith. I'll assume good faith as a default, and answer the question.

The Environment is not sentient, and therefore cannot be abused. That means nobody has ever abused The Environment, and never will.

Indeed. About 95% of people on earth consume food grown with synthetic fertilizer, where ammonia is derived from natural gas and coal. It all started in the 1880s.