![The Great Filter theory finally solved [1292x918 - 259KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/NvkH7D.png){kind=link}
I mean there is literally no other species on earth that is subject to consumerism...
Except for all of them. What do you think the signs that say;
Don't feed the wild animals it creates a dependent population. bad thing bad thing bad thing
...describe?
That's consumerism. The "dependent" population is bad because it dies off. When an entire local, natural fauna dies off it causes significant ecological disharmony and damage.
Your problem is you're limiting what "consumerism" means for everything to what it specifically means for humans. That's ridiculous.
Just like "racism" doesn't exist with nonhuman species. Except it does.
Except that even in your example, the “consumerism” of other species doesn’t exist without humans providing it. There aren’t any squirrels giving up their acorns so they can have nicer tree holes
Sure because we rarely see populations die off due to nature being too bountiful randomly. Except we do. More specifically with plants.
Balance is a natural byproduct if existence in nature in the biological sense. Climate and whether can throw that balance off and end up causing a mass death of local ecological species.
We don't see it (that way) because we do see it and it's just natural. As a new balance is established in the ashes of the old unbalance.
You're again thinking of things on human terms. Stop it. You are limiting how you see the question so much by doing that.
You said you had seen theories describing this. As I said at the very beginning, I’d be interested in seeing them. Especially if they use the term “consumerism” the way you do. But in any case, I’d read them
(post is archived)