No way. Just considering the human 95%, they'll always outnumber us. Every time a small percent tries to wipe out the majority, those bodies unite en masse to put down or overthrow. Often at great losses that mean very little when their number is so huge to begin with. I agree that alienation fear of the other I'm better than the unwashed masses is a form of self delusion engrandizement whatever other terms are used for antisocial people these days. Sure it is. But each person making up that 95% thinks the same way on certain topics. The point is that when enough of the individuals feel threatened, they seek safety in numbers. Even with technology, sheer numbers still make the difference to date. Because that huge mass *is* made up of individuals. If hording together doesn't overthrow the powerful minority, then they act separately - making their collective damage even harder to counter, let alone prevent. Terrorism has shown this quite nicely. Even with the 5% of thinkers/doers/would-be-rulers, they only achieve their means when they get enough like minded people together to outweigh the more active of the 95% - and that flips around when the less active members of the mass start stepping up (in mass, but also individually).Otohiko wrote:You have to be insane to believe that this is the finest that we as a race can do and that this is what will save us from our own glorious march into autoegotechnocratic fuckwhat that surely awaits us sooner rather than later if we keep going at that pace. We're fighting that 95%. We'll soon purge it all successfully. 95% of everything is dead to us already. There should soon be some pure 5% white daffodils on the grave.
The whole 'a button push to destroy the world' thing is the real delusion. It won't destroy the world. It'll take out a mass here and a mass there, including the 5% responsible for it, and then the majority will replace them, working together until they reach a point where the higher 5% of their individuals stand out enough for them to do it all over again. This is all petty fumigation in the grande scheme of things. If you really wanted to kill all the bees in the world, you do it by making the world uninhabitable for that species. Global warming (or natural climate change) can do that. Dropping bug bombs on the biggest hives won't do anything but take out those hives, making less competition for the rest.
I do believe in global warming. I consider it no different from the changes that happened earlier in the earth's history - many species die, those that can adapt flourish, and the cycle goes on. We probably are contributing to the climate change. I like the theory that dinosaurs flourished on the high oxygen air until they simply grew too large for the environment to sustain them, triggering a natural shift that they couldn't adapt to. A sudden disaster may have wiped them out (lots of theories on that), but they were doomed regardless. Humans may be repeating that by using using (abusing) their environment until eventually the earth just can't sustain that anymore. Then they'll have to adapt or die out. I'm betting we'll adapt. Many nations would die out because they lack the money and technology to survive radical changes even if they come over a long period of time. But the species as a whole is better able to adapt than any (save cockroaches) because we don't depend on the environment to live. We eat artificially grown food, live in artificially created environments and what goes on outside the window only matters in the way it raises the cost of heating and cooling. If we use up the natural resources, we create artificial ones. Bad for the environment, yes, be we don't depend on the natural environment and haven't for a long time now.
Personally, I think the climate change will continue no matter what efforts we make to slow it down. The only difference is whether it hits us or our grandchildren. Humans aren't connected to the environment enough to care either way. We're the ruling species because of that.

