0.01 > 0.001. Is 0.01 “pretty good”, considering you can have 1.0 but it involves some work?
P.S. In my culture we have a proverb “He never ate anything sweeter than carrots”. The meaning is self-explanatory I hope…
It’s the most habitable place we know of in the universe. That seems pretty good considering the alternatives
username_1@discuss.tchncs.de 2 days ago
Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Every living thing on this planet has found it perfectly habitable, and they just hunt or graze. We think we’re special because we can envision doing either of those things more effectively for ourselves. And maybe we are, the likelihood of us being on a very habitable planet teeming with life, versus everything else we know is one out of every space rock we’ve ever witnessed. Or it’s not special at all, and yet we make the choice of thinking we are anyway, and that we must “conquer nature” as some sort of testament to, who or what end, exactly? To defy god, to procreate our special seed, to prove that we can? Shall we manifest destiny all the other barren rocks to make them habitable too, just because we can?
red_tomato@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It wasn’t too long ago the chance of making it to puberty was equal to a coin toss. Nature is no garden of Eden.
Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
Sure thing, but it seems that we’re also driving ourselves to the other side of the survivability bell curve with how ‘well’ we’re creating a habitat. I can’t argue that either of you are wrong, the logic is consistent, nature isn’t friendly, at best it’s indifferent. But let’s not miss the forest for the trees, just because humans are capable of toiling land for the next generation, doesn’t mean that the planet is more or less habitable, it means that it can be habitable for more occupations.