this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
591 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18878 readers
4048 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 29 points 1 day ago (11 children)

I remember reading something like that years ago ... that there are some historians who think that we haven't left the dark ages yet. In everything else with technology and information we've progressed but we still think and act the same way we have for the past 2000 years.

And the more I read about the subject over the years the more I realized that as human animals, our modern species have only been around for about 50,000 years. In all that time, we've only ever been fearful, short sighted, frightened creatures that wanted everything as quickly and as much as possible all the time. We couldn't do it before but now we can.

In that 50,000 year timeline we're only on the very tip of history ... it's going to take us millennia to change.

[–] ech@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Just to clarify, 50,000 years is 50 millennia. If you meant millions if years, the term for that is mega-anna. And eons for billions.

Other than that, I more or less agree. Humans have developed technologically much faster than we've been able to evolve/adapt to the changes we're creating, and the stress from that is growing. Occasionally I wonder if it'll prove too much for us in the end.

[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I dunno, couldn't humans short circuit evolutionary trends by hacking their own genetics?

[–] ech@lemm.ee 3 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Evolution being slow is a good thing. Trying to shortcut it would just be a more direct way to destroy the species. Also a great example of the kind of thing I'm referring to.

[–] sqw@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 18 hours ago

species could still either thrive or die out because of or in spite of the meddling.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)