• Comment105@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I love how we watched Fern Gully, saw the machine monster, and thought “Yeah, we need more stuff like that!”

    And now over two thirds of all wildlife is dead and gone since 1970.

    • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      People need houses, toilet paper and pallets to ship all of their food around the world. As with most things, the problem is the size of the human population: not the specific methods by which we go about destroying the earth. There’s just too many of us. The balance is off.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not really. This argument is just eco-fascism.

        We could cut down on the amount we consume, and be fine with our current population, but that would make the capitalists sad, so we don’t.

        • Piers@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Something else people don’t stop to think about is that we could also consume the same amount with a lower negative impact but just create less excess value whilst doing so. If we produced the goods people use every day to a good quality to no purpose other than because people need (want) them we could do so far more ecologically sensitively than we do now. The only difference would be that some tangentially involved rent-seeking lunatic would have to settle for a thinner coat of gold leaf on the toilet seat in the staff bathroom on their second yacht.

          There’s an astonishing amount of deadwood we can carve away from our production lines in the form of wealth production for the existing wealth class before we need to ask their serfs regular people to make sacrifices.

          Or at least there was. We’ve pushed things to such a state of emergency that we probably do now need to make every possible change on all fronts if we wish to minimise the devastation from climate change. We still need to ensure we include the main driving factors in causing these issues within that though.

      • Comment105@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s also the fact that my profession consumes large sheets of steel for vanity. But putting people to work is the prime directive, doing useful work is far lower on the priority list. Questioning useless waste of time and energy is even lower again, much lower than the goal of preventing excess free time.

        Until you people change, I will continue consuming your carbon-heavy electricity and steel, and consuming my time, for the purpose of ensuring I am allowed food and housing. And I will eat a red meat diet out of spite.

        Sounds like a terrible trade for all parties, but you lot seem to prefer it.