[peter_vukovic]

From a systems perspective, civilization is the greatest pollutant. Whether it's Mesopotamia, Rome, industrial Britain, or the modern global economy, each civilization is a complex machine that extracts resources, generates waste and disrupts ecosystems. There’s no version of it that’s truly sustainable long-term, just degrees of delay or harm reduction.

There is absolutely nothing special about beef. We could replace beef with palm oil, lithium, air travel, or even data centers. The same system logic applies: convert energy and resources into power, growth, and order, while displacing entropy elsewhere.

A clean planet is a planet without civilization. This is a factual observation, not nihilism.

[4gotunameagain]

So you are saying that we should adhere to a binary logic, where we either accept the destruction of the Earth as a fact, or we form a doomsday cult ?

I don't understand. It is quite clear that we are what is polluting the planet, sure.

There are multiple ways to reduce our impact and try to reach some sort of balance. Of course everything is imbalanced right now, we are only a couple of generations after the industrial revolution after all.

[peter_vukovic]

Accept the destruction of civilization as a fact. The Earth will be just fine.

[saagarjha]

Let's not.

[4gotunameagain]

This is a factual observation, not nihilism.

[peter_vukovic]

Of course it is. Every civilization so far has ended due to internal collapse. I'd love to hear arguments and evidence about why you believe our society is on a different path.

[4gotunameagain]

I do not see a "destruction of civilisation". If anything, what I see is enlargement of it.

[otikik]

> A clean planet is a planet without civilization

That's not at all true, from either side.

To begin with, a planet can be "dirty" without any civilization. Most planets are. Look at Venus. Our own planet had already gone through 5 mass extinction events before we came up. The Great Oxigenation Event in particular does look like "pollution until planet death" without any civilization involved.

On the other side, it possible to have clean civilization - even one that cleans up more as it advances. You make it sound like it's an inherent problem - like civilization is "by definition" unclean. That is not at all the case. We have seen it is possible. What it isn't, is (as) profitable as simply not dealing with the externalities.

Civilization,Clean Planet,Maximal Profit: pick two.

[peter_vukovic]

> To begin with, a planet can be "dirty" without any civilization. Most planets are.

They can also be clean. Look at Earth. Don't see an argument here. We are discussing whether civilization pollutes or not, not whether planets are inherently habitable or inhibitable.

> We have seen it is possible.

Where have we seen it possible?

[otikik]

I don't think you are in a position to have reasonable discussion so I choose to stop here. Have a good day sir.

[peter_vukovic]

Fair point. I was too dismissive in my earlier response, and I apologize. You raised strong and valid arguments. My perspective is shaped by a long pattern of historical collapses, but I’d truly welcome any examples or evidence that point to a different trajectory.

[_Algernon_]

Any living creature would fit that definition of "civilization". A sponge takes up resources from its environment, and releases its waste products into the environment. Non-native species often disrupt ecosystems when introduced somewhere new. So unless you moderate your argument by including some required scale it doesn't make any sense. But it would follow that we could reduce resource inputs and outputs to such an extent that civilization is no longer harmful, which puts a damper on your statement that this is "factual observation, not nihilism".

[peter_vukovic]

> Any living creature would fit that definition of "civilization"

It would not. I said civilization "extracts resources, generates waste and disrupts ecosystems". A sponge does not disrupt its ecosystem. In fact, it keeps it alive.

> Non-native species often disrupt ecosystems when introduced somewhere new.

And how does this happen exactly? Non-native species do not just walk around - you need humans and civilization to move them around, and create exactly these kinds of issues.

[Tade0]

I don't think it's really factual.

Ultimately it's about the energy invested to on one hand keep civilization running and on the other dispose of its products in a non-disruptive manner. There's an overabundance of it from the sun, we just haven't scaled up our means of extracting it.

A solar panel throughout its lifetime gathers way more energy than is required to produce it and later turn into materials for new solar panels. There exists a process for that and I'm sure eventually legislation will follow as the number of end-of-life panels grows.

[londons_explore]

I think OP is saying it's impossible to have no impact - both theoretically and practically.

From a theoretical perspective, that sunlight on your solar panel isn't free - there was some tree or plant who would have used it if you had not.

Even if you build over the ocean, there would be some algae grown with that light and fish who ate the algae.

From a practical perspective, good luck making and deploying huge amounts of solar panels without huge mines for materials, a big road network cutting through the forest to deliver the parts, huge cities for people to live in who operate the factories etc.

[Tade0]

> From a theoretical perspective, that sunlight on your solar panel isn't free - there was some tree or plant who would have used it if you had not.

Actually, no. Plants typically use just the two chlorophyll bands and the carotenoids band and they really don't need all of the 1000W/m2 of solar radiation - you see this in how plants in direct sunlight turn red to absorb less. For the same reason they're typically green, not black.

On top of that the Earth's albedo is 0.367 - much of the energy which reaches our planet is reflected back to space.

I was addressing this comment:

> There’s no version of it that’s truly sustainable long-term, just degrees of delay or harm reduction.

Yes, we have an impact on the ecosystem, no matter what we do. But the ecosystem is also able to regenerate and sustainability is just a matter of not straining it beyond that ability. It's entirely feasible, we just need to scale up certain technologies available today.

[franga2000]

Ecosystems can repair themselves from moderate amounts of damage and adapt to coexist with the thing that causes it. The problem is that we're causing too much damage too quickly.

It's also entirely possible to sustain a civilization without causing continuous damage to the planet, it just isn't allowed to be constantly growing in population and resource consumption. That's not a necessary part of civilization, it's just the way we're doing it currently.

[peter_vukovic]

> That's not a necessary part of civilization, it's just the way we're doing it currently.

All civilizations including ours have been doing it this way, so you can argue it is a part of the civilization. It’s a comforting fiction that humanity can fundamentally change its character, but the history proves otherwise.

[franga2000]

The knowledge that our growth harms the environment and will end up destroying the planet and us along with it has not been front and center in those civilisations, so it's not a fair comparison.

[peter_vukovic]

I hope you are right. I am not seeing any evidence that you are, but I still hope you are.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>There is absolutely nothing special about beef.

True, most of the demonization of beef is moral posturing, for anyone who has looked beyond the headlines, and the counterpoints.