• the_q@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    The difference is surviving species reach equilibrium typically. Humans won’t do that in a capitalist system.

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • fizzle@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        An ecosystem contains many species at equilibrium, but the ecosystem itself consumes 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.

        • fizzle@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          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.

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        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.

    • YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      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.