--- > For a long time, we have imagined ourselves as the great rulers of the world, divinely selected beings, who could modify their entire environment at will. And we have, it is true, to a great extent. Of the number of mammals in the world, only 4% live in the wild. The rest are basically humans and cattle. - [View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01h4kkh24j623vnn80h4199vc5) --- > In general, all environmental impacts can be offset the stronger and more complex our economy is. > It is true that development here does not have the slightly dogmatic character that it has in contemporary capitalism (that idea of ​​always growing, because of GDP and economic stagnation and all that), but rather that it is directly related to survival and security. However, it remains a bit of a paradox. After the civilizational collapse, were build civilization again with more or less the same principles, repeating the general logic that led to the collapse in the first place, as if we were on a hamster wheel. - [View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01h7jf6sfysv04td7z9bqe75ha) --- > I read an article about one of those dams. A dam in the ocean that linked the United Kingdom withFrance, on the one hand, and with Norway, on the other. The most difficult part of the project was sinking the > dam into the sea cliffs on the Norwegian coast, which reached a depth of 321meters. It was estimated (if estimates can be of any use in these cases) thatnot only billions of euros would be required to be invested, but also a huge investmentin materials, including the worldwide production of sand from around the world for a whole year. ... One of the paradoxes, of course, is that such a work would contribute enormously to theprimary problem itself: the more contamination, the more melting, and the higher that wall must be. --- > estimated - [View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01h7n9z8vcb8c3755mk4fvead4) ---