I guess for the same reason we need annual car inspections.

Probably something along the lines of : people cant be trusted to keep an eye on their vehicle’s condition and we don’t want any more pollution and accidents than there already is.

I think it also helps keep vehicles healthy for longer, even though that effect is negated by the fact that we’re getting pushed to replace perfectly functional cars with electric ones…

Get out of here with your non-manichean views!

Didn’t know sealioning was even a thing until now… This may explain a few interactions I had on Lemmy, I’m also very susceptible to that stuff

Thanks for this, I missed their comments before deletion.

Good on you for your thinking capacity as well, that seems to be getting kinda rare…
Let’s hope and assume it’s a “empty vessels make the most noise” type of situation.

Yes! Thank you!!!

It was really more some kind of oscilloscope that needed to be programmed then it played the whole animation.
I have never heard of that before or after seeing that video and I think it’s a bit of an obscure technology.

I agree this is all about semantics, you seem to consider nature only for its bad sides (but don’t forget we also get all our food from nature).

Nature is really terrible, actually. It’s an endless cycle of violence, death

Dying sucks but I don’t think we should ever stop doing that (at a reasonable age, let’s be clear).

I agree that being above the violent killing part of nature should be an ideal, but I’m sorry to say I don’t believe we’re there yet, people are still killing; for food, for fun, for greed, just look at the news… :'(

I resent this “man is part of nature” argument because at face value it romanticizes suffering.

Here you raise an important question: does being part of nature exclude us from using technology?

I don’t believe so. To me being part of nature does not mean to live like our ancestors did when there was no manmade things, or when you would get burned at the stake for doing science…
(I’m not sure in what periods of history you would consider we were part of nature).

The way I see it, we could be part of nature while using a lot of the technologies we use today. We would just need to tweak (a lot) of them and drop the use of many more, but I’m convinced that, if everybody started taking their responsibilities, we could find effective ways to produce enough medicine and food without the damage that those currently cause.

So yeah, I get you, you get me, we just don’t mean the same thing when we say nature :)

Saying we’re above nature sounds like we’re better than it/better without it (which some people seem to think but please, let’s not give that idea more traction by declaring it a fact).

I think it’s more like humans are trying to separate themselves from nature.

I agree with the sentiment but “Absolutely no woman has ever fantasized” about that?

Do you really believe that? If not, why use these words? I don’t think it serves your purpose and it’s too bad.

Don’t hate me please. I’m just talking semantics which are important to me