That's a standard problem with ecology. I can't use a plastic straw which has negligible impact but fishing industry can dump 640,000 tonnes of plastic every year and that's fine. Let's just ignore that.

You go on holiday once a year with the efficient normal flight - bad guy. Ritch person uses private jet for no good reason - that's normal. Let's ignore those emissions and create special rules for the airlines so they don't have to worry about it too much.

Private jets pollution doubled during one year and it's probably the worst way to travel for the environment but I hope you have spent your life savings for a slightly better car to compensate that. We can't inconvenience ritch people, right?

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 146 points 7 months ago (24 children)

It is this way because the rich people control everything. They won't lift a finger to change if they think they can scam 10,000,000 people into lives of utter inconvencience and guilt to "offset" their own pollution. Hint; every one of us could live in caves and recycle our everything with stillsuits and the rich's portion would just expand to fill the voids we left. This isn't a game with a high score. The hands of the many must join as one to cross the river of life.

[–] lolrightythen@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

pre edit: this is just a pointless rant. Your time is precious. Consider skipping it

Please don't take my statement as arguing against your point (I like where you are coming from).

I don't even need sources, I rarely believe metrics in the first place because it is so difficult to conceive and even harder to conduct studies at this scale. This isn't even a possibility in my mind, but:

If everyone that wasn't in the global top 10% of wealth went full Fremen, would the problem truly continue to exist? I doubt it because much of the much industry owned by our increasingly indulgent hoarders wouldn't be necessary. There wouldn't be regular folks to make or buy the product. We'd be hiding under the sand in a cave while drinking our own pee.

I'm not knocking it - I haven't tried it. All at once, anyways.

The gluttonous upper crust would still be jetting to the poles and burning tires for light, but I feel like that would be a much smaller burden on our planet's ability to support life as we've known it than industry on a massive global scale.

I don't know what my point is exactly. I don't think I believe we'll find a workable solution without a cataclysm. Let's go with: selfish assholes are gonna earn their title every time. Regular folks shouldn't be told that their combined efforts won't put a dent in the problem. The ultra rich process nature into poison in order to gain more wealth and power over their peasants. Weakening public education and access to healthcare helps them sell their low quality, single use poisonous trinkets. Having a bunch of money isn't useful if there aren't a lot of folks that have little or even less money. Power, money, knowledge - resource - however you want to frame it.

But then the rich could just overpopulate and use their least favorite offspring as peasants...

Ugh. I should just delete this comment as I don't know what my central statement is. I am certainly not disagreeing. Maybe its that we shouldnt accept futility even though our efforts may truly be futile. To encourage integrity and contentment among our masses. It's very possible for the inhabitants to overcome our downward trend - but if we end up failing, there is still no reason we should accept defeat and be the poor, uneducated, meager servants they see us as.

Fuck the powers that don't respect every life equally. Even if resistance isn't effective, I'd rather suffer than accept a darker future. (I won't have kids. Easy for me to say)

Ugh. Sorry if anyone reads this. I just needed to vent I guess. Thanks for being interested and making the post and conversation. Be well all

[–] brandocorp@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

I appreciated your rant. I don't really know what I'm talking about, so take this all with a grain of salt.

What you're sort of describing sounds like a boycott of our capitalist system. In theory, if we all could be self-sustainable and didn't need to participate in the current system just to survive, then I think it would collapse. How could it not? The billionaires are billionaires because we give up our time and labor for currency which we then reinvest in a system which transfers most of that currency to a select few at the top. If we all stopped participating where would the billionaires get their billions, and what would they even spend it on, if not our labor or products produced by our labor?

I can only speak for where I live but this kind of organizational boycott of the system isn't really likely to happen anytime soon. It's too difficult to organize that number of people into non-participation especially when there are not really any alternatives. It's not even easy to get people to give up listening to a certain artist's music if they've done a terrible thing. People are living shitty or difficult lives and need their creature comforts just to mentally get by. I don't blame them. There would have to be a viable, functioning alternative already in place which could absorb the needs of a massive number of people. It would take cooperation and compassion, and I guess I just don't see that in the cards.

Even if we did, how long would it last until the power hungry manipulated their way into building another version of the same system?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (22 replies)

load more comments (39 replies)