Collapse

305 readers

1 users here now

This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.

Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.

RULES

1 - Remember the human

2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source

3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.

4 - No low effort, high volume and low relevance posts.

Related lemmys:

founded 5 months ago

MODERATORS

eleitl@lemm.ee

maketotaldestr0i@lemm.ee

eris@lemm.ee

-5

The Great American Poisoning (justinmares.substack.com)

submitted 4 months ago by maketotaldestr0i@lemm.ee to c/collapse@lemm.ee

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sxan@midwest.social 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I got this far:

Animals inhabiting their evolved, ancestral environment are healthy — by default.

or they're dead. Because, in the wild, animals die. A lot. Especially ones that get at all unhealthy. Whereas we humans - social creatures who have resource abundance, knowledge, and skill to be able to carry our sick and unhealthy well past a time when they'd have died in the wild - die less. At least, from being unhealthy. We don't always use these resources wisely, especially in some countries, but from premature births, to congenital diseases, to severe cases of autism, these humans have a far greater chance of surviving infanthood than any such defects in wild animals. Heck, merely being the smallest of a litter is enough to doom you, in the wild.

The article might have been well-informed and factual, but starting with such an absurd premise, I couldn't maintain interest long enough to find out.

[–] Midnight@slrpnk.net 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The article might have been well-informed and factual

Like many substacks purporting to give health information, its a massive link dump filled with unsupported suppositions in between. Reading all the links provided would give much more accurate information.

In the final paragraphs his insistence that everyone should be keto and not use any form of sunscreen gives away the fact he's a crank.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 4 points 4 months ago

Thanks for suffering for the rest of us.

[–] maketotaldestr0i@lemm.ee -3 points 4 months ago

So basically you are poopooing an article you didnt read because you got bothered by one decontextualized pull quote.

"The article might have been well-informed and factual, but starting with such an absurd premise, I couldn’t maintain interest long enough to find out."

why bother commenting if you haven't read it or even knowing if the "absurd premise" is even in fact a premise required to support the rest of the thing?