this post was submitted on 25 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Comic Strips

11810 readers
1814 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

regulate billion dollar corporations and then over 99% of all pollution will stop.

I'm not getting rid of my car, make billionaires and millionaires get rid of their private jets and make them stop dumping garbage into waterways

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but those regulations have to be stuff like "no selling petroleum to people for their cars". Are you ready for a carless world? I am. If you're not ready, you might find yourself opposing the necessary regulation when the time does come to regulate.

[–] Fillicia@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't know why these discussion are often met with "if you're not ready to lose your car you're the problem" narrative.

I might not be ready to lose my car but I sure as hell am ready to lose coal based electricity, the military complex, single use plastic, billionaire who prefer to let a train derail than spend money on regulations, and a shit ton other things that wouldn't even affect my day to day life other than make it safer.

[–] Skates@feddit.nl -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I might not be ready to lose my car but I sure as hell am ready to lose

Whatever it is you're ready to lose, there are people out there who aren't ready to lose it.

coal based electricity

Fuck right off, there are entire countries who would be completely at a loss without coal-based electricity. Countries which would rather you lose your car.

the military complex

Everyone working in the military complex would rather you lose your car than they lose their jobs. It's you and your car vs millions of people all over the world specifically trained to identify threats to their security, find them and shoot/cut/drone/nuke them. Good luck.

single use plastic

I mean you wanna fight all the corpos involved with single used plastics, I'm sure having your car will keep you from being suffocated with a plastic bag for like 2 hours.

You're unwilling to allow for changes in your personal lifestyle to globally change things for the better, so why the fuck would anyone else? Just nuke the planet from orbit at this point, we're all egotistical shitheads and there's no way to convince Jimmy McFuckface to give up his 1994 truck, we're done here.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's great, but EmperorHenry said regulation would stop 99% of emissions. I can assure you that personal vehicles and animal agriculture represent more than 1% of emissions. If we're talking about a 20%, 50%, maybe even 70% reduction, then your argument is fine. But we need a 100% reduction in order to save the species. I'm ready for 100%, are you?

[–] Agrivar@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Can we hit 100% if we sacrifice annoying pedants like you?

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

We're actually going through the 6th mass extinction right now, so actually we are kinda killing most everything on the planet, not just us.

We should want to preserve that. Unfortunately a handful of old rich dudes don't care.

[–] venoft@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Nature will survive, this specific bird species perhaps not.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Cause the rich will be fine. They're simply not affected by it.

[–] tfw_no_toiletpaper@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Aside from the thousands of species we killed in the process

[–] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It's a recurrent theme in the history of the world you know, thousands, hundreds of thousands, tens of millions of species killed, never to be seen again.

No species ever lasts that long.

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No species ever lasts that long.

Sharks enter the thread.

Awkward silence ensues

[–] MonkderDritte@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Terry the Trilobite too.

[–] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

250 millions years ago, there was a mass extinction that killed 95% of life on earth.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This is so fucking stupid.

No seriously. Stop. Think. This is SO FUCKING STUPID.

Humans can live IN SPACE. We are NOT destroying ourselves. We are HYPER ADVANCED COCKROACHES. We will easily survive whatever damage we cause to the planet.

The problem with destroying the planet is not that we're destroying humanity. What a stupid, egocentric take. The problem with destroying the planet IS THAT WE'RE DESTROYING THE PLANET.

"Mass extinction? Eh who cares" is a FUCKING STUPID TAKE and I have no clue why so many people here are okay with it. What the fuck is wrong with all of you? This is NOT OKAY. MASS EXTINCTIONS ARE NOT OKAY.

Is this a fucking psyop? What the fuck?

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, survive yes. But self-sufficiency is a big problem. The world is nowadays so interconnected that even a problem in only one region can severely affect all of humanity (e.g. semiconductors from Taiwan). So yes, a collapse of our modern society is certainly possible.

Destroying the planet is not really a thing. Mass extinctions in the past were a big deal but at the same time: Earth recovered. We only have a big problem because the plants/animals we need might go extinct.

Obviously valuing nature and wildlife diversity in and of itself is good but it doesn't have any intrinsic value in regards to supporting society.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Destroying the planet is not really a thing

Also, can everyone please shut the fuck up with the "Well ACKSHUALLY, you're not destroying the literal ball of rock and magma so you're not destroying the planet". Fuck you, you know what it means.

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I meant "destroy the planet" as in lifeless/only single celled organisms.

And you can kind of see humanity as "just another big asteroid impact". Nature will recover competeley over the next million years or so. That's what I meant with mass extinctions being kind of inconsequential for the planet as a whole on geological time scales.

Obviously mass extinctions are also bad besides their effect on human society, I just meant that that is mostly a spiritual one thats hard to measure, about lost potential and eradicating a species. As a thought experiment, is eradicating a disease, a form of life, inherently negative? Mosquitoes? Do you agree that it's a big achievement that we eradicated small pox? What if we eradicate all existing diseases?

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Mass extinctions are different. We should be aiming to never have any more mass extinctions ever.

[–] Ropianos@feddit.de 0 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I guess that was a bit of a strawman. Obviously mass extinctions are bad.

[–] Johanno@feddit.de 0 points 3 months ago

Climate protection was never about saving species or eco systems.

It is about not fucking the whole planet wide eco system so that we can't live anymore on this planet.

However even that we dropped for profits.

I mean basically anything relating to energy would have costed the double amount (at least).

Now we have also to reduce the co2 that was produced 200 years and the one that is triple the amount of the next 10 years.