can there be a future where humankind and nature

Replies

A

Anon08/21/26, 10:46No.5154374

Maybe future settlers on a distant frontier planet, but for Earth its basically joever if it remains on its current trajectory.

1

A

Anon08/21/26, 11:48No.5154379

Too late. Only would have worked if, instead of feeding indians, bangladeshis, africans and other trash and letting them multiply into billions, we wiped them out instead. The place will be a barren rubbish mountain hellscape before long

0

A

Anon08/21/26, 11:50No.5154380

Population control. Over 8 billion people is a ridiculous amount of biomass. All that needs to be catered to. Sure we can build upwards or be inventive with modernized farming but how well nature does is always balanced out with how much humanity uses it. Fortunately, people are planting forests and digging lakes. But we care too much about our survival to keep nature stable. Dispose the worst part of humanity first.

1

A

Anon08/21/26, 11:57No.5154381

i wish miyazaki did more of these morally ambiguous teen movies rather than children stories you really cant right now, because theres too much emphasis on the arbitrary value of human life which is the correct response for a species, valuing itself and its own survival above all else. because of how humans function, they dont have a natural kill switch like other animals anymore, most mammals only live like 20 years at most before massive organ failure or inability to eat, while humans doesnt happen until after 40, and even then progression of science and society keeps putting that off and sets it to like 80+ now. so unless youre willing to kill boomers and reduce the levels of technology in the world to wood fires, or invent a perpetual motion machine, its never really going to happen.

0

A

Anon08/21/26, 12:32No.5154385

Matrix style AI enslavement. Either allow/give the choice to/force everyone living below a certain standard to live their life in a utopian AI where their mind is hooked up to a simulation that gives them a life free from all humanly suffering and interconnected to the rest of the plugged in humans and in return the people living in real earth get to utilize their biology for energy, organs, or whatever may be of use to the people still living in reality.

1

A

Anon08/21/26, 13:26No.5154396

Nope, a species only gets to human levels of evolution by destroying everything around it

0

A

Anon08/21/26, 15:34No.5154423

We replace the shitty parts with ones we can live with. This is inevitable. It has to happen or your people suffer and die like thirdies.

1

A

Anon08/25/26, 00:44No.5155279

Sauce

1

A

Anon08/29/26, 15:02No.5156594

Unironically the suburbs and rural areas have a decent amount of nature. Sure you won't find herds of bisons, but you can still find diverse habitats and species alongside rivers and the middle of swamps, or a guy who doesn't really care about maintaining his property that much.The modern suburban sprawl that destroys entire forests to make a cookie cutter developments however is absolutely horrible, and so is the leftist ideal where they shove us all into commie blocks.

0

A

Anon08/29/26, 17:06No.5156617

no

0

A

Anon08/29/26, 18:17No.5156639

Coexistance is never peaceful, as humans will always be hunting prey, and carnivores will always be on the lookout for an easy indian kid burger or something. Plus, add to that extremely violent herbivores (elephants in musth), and the consciousless side of nature (tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes etc..) always starting shit. The question should be: can humans and nature coexist IN BALANCE? The answer is YES, as we've done do for over 300k years, up until the industrial revolution. So the REALLY interesting question becomes: can POST-INDUSTRIAL humanity coexist in balance with nature? And that's a tough one. There are ways to make it happen... Although 99% of people of the planet would be vehemently opposed to them (restricted breeding, depopulation tactics, old age culling, reduced quality of life, destruction of the globalized consummerist economic network etc...). So it's more of a no than a yesThx for reading my blog

1

A

Anon08/30/26, 22:30No.5156941

Remove all jeets and rightoids and you're a good bit of the way there.

0

A

Anon09/08/26, 16:41No.5159177

Places full of white people will be perfectly fine. That demographic actually cares about preservation. Every other area we have to watch out for though.

1