all 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 39 points 9 months ago (1 child)

“The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are killing it have names and addresses.”

Utah Phillips

The deaths from climate change related Ice storms, floods, fires, heat waves and droughts are not due to "catastrophes", or "disasters" they are calculated, premeditated murders for profit.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 66 points 9 months ago (20 children)

    Hunting billionaires for sport would make the world immeasurably better in every way

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • I would never actually think of that & what about to say should be done… Remembering ‘The Aerosmith’s song ‘Eat The Rich’ every time this pops up. I once was so mad (not as mad as today, so progress in my peaceful mind-peaceful practice) told a cousin that The Rich-Super Rich Economic Classes/Owners should be made in editable food for people starving around the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago (18 children)

    There are a tiny proportion of relatively decent ones, such as Mackenzie Scott (Bezos' ex-wife), so I would only ask that such a hunt not be completely indiscriminate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    They can give their money away if they really are decent. Like she is doing. A notice of the start of hunting season should be all they would need to move themselves out of that class.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Make it a Top Ten Hunt. The list would be fluid as they either dispose of assets or get eliminated. Spoils go to the charity of those most in need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    The list would be fluid

    If the killer keeps the money they take the 'vacant' place in the list, in the end the person most willing to use violence and most capable to buy protection end up with most money. Might not really be a meaningful difference to what we have now lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 9 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Keeping such a black & white view of things makes you no better than MAGAts, IMHO. There's nuance to everything, and if you can't be bothered to consider it then YOU are making yourself part of the problem.

    If you bothered to look into things & think them through, you'd see she's using her wealth to generate even more money she can donate to good causes. If she just gave away everything she got out of the marriage right away, she'd be approaching the bottom of her barrel right about now instead of having much more to contribute to good causes as she now does.

    Step back from the anger, and get a bigger view of things, eh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    She’s unelected, and dictates the disbursement of a great deal of unearned funds.

    Big picture, no nuance needed: it’s feudalist to let her make these decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Grow TF up & get with reality, dude. She's working within a system she didn't create. When you effect a complete overhaul of how the country works, we'll talk. Until then, she's doing much more good than most - certainly more than the bullshit your unrealistic excuses to be judgemental are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    She is not creating the system, but is in fact reinforcing it. It is by definition undemocratic.

    I am glad she's shedding the capital, but be real, she's never going to shed enough to come back to the realm of ordinary humans. She married an oligarch, and by being an oligarch that temporarily embarrassed billionaires such as yourself stan for, she is a shining beacon of justification for the system as it is.

    I hope that once I achieve oligarch status myself, that you and I can carry on this deep conversation!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Whatever you say. I'm not the one blindly hating an entire class of people without treating each one as an individual, much like a bigot. Your blind hatred is demonstrated by the fact you act like giving away a third of her net worth - even after accounting for her gains - is just a "tax dodge."

    I get the anger and share it to an extent, but not to the point of blind rage that makes one no better than any other bigot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    Hate to break this to you, but billionaires are not a "class" in the same way merchants or workers are. The problem with being a billionaire is that by the mere fact of being one, you are already on the wrong side of history and morality. If any of them had morals, they would immediately divest enough wealth to others to become not a billionaire. But they don't. Because they are still billionaires. Including the one in your example.

    As the person above said, there are no good billionaires, full stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Still married Bezos. Still has billions of dollars to her name. Still owns part of Amazon. There is no such thing as a decent billionaire.

    https://pseigo.github.io/what-does-a-billion-look-like/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Keeping such a black & white view of things makes you no better than MAGAts, IMHO. There's nuance to everything, and if you can't be bothered to consider it then YOU are making yourself part of the problem.

    If you bothered to look into things & think them through, you'd see she's using her wealth to generate even more money she can donate to good causes. If she just gave away everything she got out of the marriage right away, she'd be approaching the bottom of her barrel right about now instead of having much more to contribute to good causes as she now does.

    Step back from the anger, and get a bigger view of things, eh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Get Woked more, there are none. They have all these resources that poor-extremely (disgustingly, no one ever wants to live like, but when forced to will) poor people will never have, not just in poor countries, but in The 1st World’s wealthiest countries. And those people do not care enough to reduce their wealths/resources, hidden from taxes in USA & Etc. banking, to devote to truly making a difference in those poor-extremely (disgustingly, no one ever wants to live like, but when forced to will) poor people‘s lives & generations after them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 27 points 9 months ago

    image

    Class conflict is a problem for much of human existence.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 9 months ago

    Financial obesity is an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

    Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I think of giant monsters. Kaiju.

    A normal ant is no problem. An ant the size of a skyscraper is a problem.

    Money is the size here. A human with a billion dollars is a giant monster kaiju.

    It ain't the species it's the size.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    And even more importantly, you have to figure out what is causing the ants to grow that big in the first place. There are billions of ants on the planet. Killing the couple giant ones does nothing if other ants can just grow to the same size.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    "most"?

    Try "all". Everything always eventually comes down to someone, somewhere, trying to make more profit for themselves.

    That's why "Follow the money" is the surest way to solve any crime.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago*

    The bourgeoisie do not receive a wage. They receive our wages in the form of profit. If a maximum wage was introduced in the current system it would be made to benefit the bourgeois as they are the ones writing our laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago*

    They don't get wealth from labor, it's all about owning the shit that gets them wealth.

    And even then, they don't sell it to buy things, they use it as leverage to spend the banks' money.

    So it's really about taxing more dividends, and any loans gained from leveraging assets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    They are the symptoms, not the disease. Capitalism will always create them on a long enough timeline. It is streamlined feudalism.

    If you have any type of head start under capitalism, for any reason, regardless if everyone profits, those who initially profited a little more will profit exponentially more at an exponential rate as time goes by.

    The claim is that under capitalism, everybody is better off. But if they earn 1.1 times as much as you do, as the years turn into decades into centuries, you will have earned a fraction of what they did. That difference matters a lot, especially at scale.

    If I get $1 and you get $100, that's a big difference between us, but not life changing for either.

    If I get $1000 and you get $100000, that is a massive difference between us, trivial for me, definitely significant for you.

    If I have $100000 and you have $10000000, we might as well live on different planets.

    Capitalism doesn't take this into consideration. Sorry for the somewhat juvenile example, I'm very tired, and am going to have another drink now.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Your example isn’t bad. You could go further. 1,000,000 vs 1,000,000,000. Massive difference.

    The problem is when we live in a world when we have millions of people with less than $1,000, and others have more than $300,000,000,000.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago*

    Here's another problematic aspect of the same-

    In 1913 there were 435 representatives in Congress. The population of the United States was ~97 million.

    In 2026 there are still 435 representatives. The population is about ~335 million.

    In 1913 each representative spoke for roughly 223,000 people.

    In 2026 each representative speaks for roughly 770,000 people.

    In 1789 there were 65 representatives, and about 4 million people, speaking for ~60,500 people each.

    Scale matters, a lot.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    "the only minority group destroying our country are billionaires" as the bumper sticker on my therapists's car says... love her

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Exactly. These creatures ARE our only real problem. More-less everything else, we could solve if they just...

    ...stopped being alive.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • BINGO, SUMMED-UP The World on Capitalism!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Money. We need a new system of commerce. The quest for even more money is the longest problem we refuse to look at in human history. Excessive greed should be punished not aspired to. All we seem to do is turn to rich people for answers like they've figured out the world, when in fact they ignore the world and supplant a system called "the economy" over actual reality. We make goods and send them there to buy back their goods from over there to make people in the middle rich for doing nothing. Completely ignoring health, safety, the environment in the process, things that are real in the real world that we all experience and affect us. Make it make sense to me.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Oh dont worry, the earth will still spin. Life will go on.

    Humans are fucking this up for themselves and wont be missed. [Beep boop, im not a robot]

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    One could argue that the currency system itself legitimizes the amassing of enormous wealth into the hands of a tiny minority.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movement of small green pieces of paper, which was odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    One of the most carbon intensive things someone can do, especially in the developed world, is to have a kid.

    If money was more equally distributed more people would have more kids.

    So really the billionaires are helping with climate change.

    /s

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    It is a little weird that this had never occurred to you until it popped into your head during a shower, but better late than never!

  • source
  • [+] 5 points 9 months ago (16 children)
  • Money results in having power, wether you use it or not/Privilege (SP?) given people with more money over people with less money .

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (14 children)

    Power is owned by Capital. Capital is owned by Violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (13 children)

    Power is owned by Capital. Capital is owned by Violence.

    Yes, power is owned Capital/wealth, But no one has power in Capitalist system without wealth/money, just a fact. So no way is Wealth/money owned by violence. Perfect example is the political history of The 1st World, especially USA & even happening with ‘The Crazy Don’s ‘Mob Enforcers’. Violence is owned by all, but Privileged, like government forces with authorities, get away with violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (11 children)

    You mean you & others do not see it much.

    I agree with everything you posted, except the very last sentence. Moving money-resources into Rich-Super Rich Economic Classes/Owners control is the foundation/final reason to everything Capitalism. Just as moving money-resources into The Royal Families’ control is the foundation/final reason to everything Feudalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 9 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (9 children)

    I agree, but you have to sell it, to be able to do what you are talking about.

    Violence is the instrument, that is used by those that have Rich-Super Rich Economic Classes/Owners/The Royal Families, thus violence is not needed without Capitalism/Feudalism trying to move money-resources to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago* (8 children)
  • I thought I can go to dark places, when living in such dark times, WOW!

    I could not disagree more, Violence is no always present for property rights.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    There is a lot conditions added to that, of course when conflict is put in your face, you might to use violence. But then again, negotiation is untapped power,
    Correction now I think about, remembering another thread about famous & except the fight for USAn Black People Rights were successful non-violent activist leaders, when violence is on them & all around them- Nelson Mandela, MLK Jr., Mr. Gandhi & Malcom X.
    Checkmate, bro,

    It just not as bad as you say it is, when peaceful activism successfully pushes out the two-strongest militaries of the world, at three-different times, in The 20th Century. There are even more successful & peaceful activist leaders & their campaigns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)
  • Come-on, man, you sounding like a Capitalist person deny facts.
    Everyone knows how much those famous Peaceful Activist Leaders, & those that followed their leader working for their rights, were killed & threatened with violence, spied on & jailed-imprisoned all the time. Yet they never used violence, even Mr. Mandela chose be Peaceful.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    Now that I have been thinking about this replies exchange & especially the above reply of your’s, I come back to reality of whom I really am- person that tries to stay peaceful & calm, but strong, in the face of people doing crazy & dangerous BLANK around me or directly against me. Examples-
    Like I said other thread, when I first started bicycling in my own community to the nearest city, pickup trucks would play chicken with me for kicks. Only thing I did was call the cops & they shut that down in a heart beat.
    I also have had an car driver try to block my cycling from continuing down the roadway, to fight me, I calmly just continue in the grass on the side of the roadway. They I guess give-up on fighting me, as I point-out the camera always recording (in 350-degrees) to another location, on the top my helmet.
    As a long time protester I have had my former truck’s, when I was still driving, license plate recorded by the police, & stayed calm & simply carpooled & we all parked far away & walk to protests. But that is nothing, have had Homestead, Fl.’s Rodeo supporters threaten me, throw stuff at me, spit on me, use ugliest language at me & worst at the fellow female protesters. Sometimes right next to me, only stop after a decade of such behavior & realizing I was not going anywhere. The first time I ever did that rodeo protest threatened by state police, payed to work that rodeo every year, with being arrested, if I had not left, then I would been arrested, even though they had no right to do so. I stayed calm, but concerned, so I walked away, after talking to former organizer, she said that they had no right to do anything & she talked to the city’s police, that have the right of regulating activist. We went back to protesting, the state police never talked to us that year. Of course it took that decade for the state & city police to stop harassing us, especially, when I hand them copies of the sheriff’s cellphone number, that I speak with every year, before protesting. One-time one of those supporters drove their huge pick-up so close to my cycling, to protest the rodeo, that I almost was hit. I simply E-Mailed The Homestead Rodeo Association telling them, they do not want me to be hit, remember I had one best video recording, & PICs taking, camera on the market.
    The point is when I maintain my calm, peaceful, but strong, self, I am better at addressing/thinking things through under such situations that can be extremely dangerous, especially if I reacted with anger, let alone violence. I am like everyone else, plenty situations where I have to calm myself down, before reacting in anger-violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Yes. We're well aware.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    On climate change, I gotta disagree. We have two major drivers of climate change: Greenhouse gas emissions, and land-use changes. The land-use changes go way back. We're in the geological epoch called the Anthropocene, one in which humanity is the dominant force in shaping the biosphere. There's some debate about it, but some scientists place the beginning of the Anthropocene as much as 15,000 years ago, driven by habitat destruction and resource extraction to support growing human populations. It takes a lot of natural resources to support each human to the standard to which we've become accustomed, and even the poor people in Western countries live a lifestyle that the Earth cannot sustain. It's not just billionaires, it's all of us.

    Similarly with fossil fuels. We know that a handful of mega-corporations produce the fossil fuels responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas releases, but they're not the ones releasing the gases. We can't just abolish them and expect nothing to change about our daily lives. We've reached a point at which even working class people in the United States can order up a taxi for their beef burrito.

    Instead, we can say that this wanton shredding of our natural inheritance enables flows of wealth that allow unscrupulous hands to skim criminal quantities off the top for their hoards. Even if we depose them, though, we'd still have the climate change problem to tackle.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    If we depose them, we'd have access to their wealth to tackle climate change. And it wouldn't be for building the doomsday bunkers they are now.

    Zuckerberg spent nearly $400 million for a bunker to be built in Hawaii. This was after Hawaii had fires that cost them nearly a billion in damages.

    Zucks $400 million purchase could have repaired half the nation-state. It would have immediately improved ecological recovery, and restore the canopy biome that helps pull C02 from the air as a natural deterent to Climate change. He'd then have most of the population worshipping him for doing so. Likely welcoming him anywhere in the state he'd want to visit.

    Instead he can now visit his bunker, needs it because the island hates him, and helped contribute to ecological collapse in building it.

    The problem is that billionaires are the worst humans imaginable to have such wealth. It will always go towards cthe acceleration of climate collapse for their benefit instead of preventing it. Whether you feel they're a contributor or not, they're still in charge of the resources that could easily stop climate change faster than any other mechanism on the planet.

    Instead they're building bunkers with that money to run from the problems they've actively contributed to more than any other human on the planet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    The love of money is the root of all evil

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    If money didn't exist there would still be a small group of people vying for power and the belief that they should rule over the rest or us. Money just made it easier.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    don't underestimate the misery caused by idiopathic disease.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    Sharing is caring

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    Or more to the point; money is the problem. Currencies are useful tokens that make trade more convenient. But systems have been built around the simple concept of a trade token that a person can have power over others by just having a bigger number.

    But it's just a number. Most of the time a number that doesn't even represent anything real or physical. Just a number of a hypothetical thing(s) that has a certain hypothetical value because someone said so.

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It is a bit more complicated than that

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    What got us here is a complicated but simple story. Those without morals have no problem cheating the system and using other people. Capitalism rewards this behavior so it as inevitable that the unscrupulous will continue to vacuum up the money and power. We are experiencing the end game of this social construct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    You can't blame everything on "capitalism." We've done the same thing for centuries.

    The problem is that the world has given a unfair advantage to some people. It really boils down to poor laws and regulations causing havoc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    Right, it’s not just capitalism, many systems reward such behavior. But we are in a capitalist society now, that does not work for those reasons. Yes, bad laws and regulations are the problem, but they are there because the unscrupulous set them in favor of themselves.

    I’m no fan any ism, they are frameworks that all need careful, strong laws and regulations. Don’t get me wrong, some are better starting points but it takes diligence and an engaged populace to keep them working.

    The problem is, normal people got complacent while the malignant ones continued to ruthlessly play the game.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    Sure, we want to blame climate change on the fossil fuel industry, the capitalist owners thereof, the big industries, long haul ocean shipping, etc. But I don't think it's realistic. Imagine the situation a few hundred years ago. We burned wood to keep warm in the winter. We cut down forests and pre-burned them in vast quantities to make charcoal which we then used in smelters to make iron and steel, in kilns to make pottery and glass, in steam engines to turn all sorts of things. We were on track to cut down every tree on the planet to use for one of those things. Then we found fossil fuels. They were better than wood in every way, except that the generated CO2 wasn't renewable. Any nation that used them surged ahead of all others in productivity, defense, offense, and quality of life. To refuse to use them, even if you knew they would kill us all a few hundred years later, meant that you got outcompeted, and probably overrun or conquered. There was no option. So everyone used them more and more. That's been the story ever since. It's a Faustian bargain. You get comfort and success now and someday your ancestors will suffer. But you figure that they will be smart enough then to solve the problem so you don't worry about it. Yes, our economic system guarantees that a small number of people will profit from it the most. And they will make it worse one way or another. But climate getting worse just a matter of time. Even if we had the most enlightened people making decisions for us who would agree when they said we all had to stop using fossil fuels? There is almost nothing you use in your life that isn't made with fossil fuels somehow. And it's too late now. We can't go back. We can't all be subsistence farmers. There are too many of us. We can't survive without fossil fuels.

    tl;dr - yeah, the capital owners are awful, but climate change would have happened without them.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    The thing is: it is no longer necessary to burn fossil fuels for transportation or energy production. The idea that this is still necessary is a narrative fueled by the money of a few unscrupulous people, which is what this random post is about. It is a lie that will lead us all to ruin.

    We simply cannot continue the status quo. This conclusion is not just my opinion, but a proven fact that, to my knowledge, no reputable scientist would dispute.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Well, your showerthought post was basically rich people cause suffering and climate change. It's true they generate a hugely disproportionate amount of CO2. But my point (and maybe it wasn't clear) was that when there is an easy energy resource just sitting underground, it's going to get used whether by rich people or not. It provides too much of an advantage. Having coal and oil at your disposal is like having a near endless supply of free workers. One liter of gasoline, when used in an engine, produces roughly 2 to 4 kWh of mechanical energy, equivalent to the daily labor of about 100 people. No society is going to turn down that many guiltless slave workers. We were told 100 years ago it was going to cause climate change, but we didn't have the technology to replace it with electric at the time. Effective batteries are a recent invention. So there really was no alternative. Your neighbor country is making use of millions of 'energy slaves' and growing their population like crazy. Are you going to continue plowing your fields with donkeys and hoping you can feed your people? No, using that energy was inevitable.

    And now? Theoretically we could replace our energy infrastructure with renewables. In the US it would take at least 5 trillion dollars and who knows how long and how much energy to do it. But I don't think it'll stop climate change. Call me a doomer, but I think it's already too late for that. We've already released enough CO2 to kill the planet. The effects just take about ten years or more to show.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    There was no option. So everyone used them more and more. That's been the story ever since. It's a Faustian bargain. You get comfort and success now and someday your ancestors will suffer.

    I mean that's just a false narrative. We've know about the negative effects of fossil fuels on the climate since the early 20th century. Back then there may have been no other viable alternative. However, that's not the case after the beginnings of the nuclear age in the 1950s.

    The only reason we have been as dependent on fossil fuels is because of fossil fuel corporations influence over government. No one is saying that we needed to completely divest from fossil fuels all together. If we just used it for things like plastics, fertilizer, or just divested from using it for power plants it would have prevented the crisis we are having today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    Yeah, the current crises have all got one similar social foundation, and that is this:

    middle-class people are aware that it would upset their rich bosses if they raised a hue and cry about it

    When the middle class people step out of line, they get fired, they get demoted, they sometimes get thrown out of a window (accidentally), or they kill themselves, supposedly, according to the coroner's report.

    So if we start killing the rich people or forcing them to sign contracts saying that their wealth requires that they provide for the lessors, then what bad actually happens?

    The world becomes a happier, better place that's cleaner and healthier and we have fewer poor people and?

    The only downside is that some of us middle class people might die in the process.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Sure fossil fuel was necessary for some time but the only reason we kept going and still dependent on it despite the technological advancements and available alternatives is because of big corporations and some politicians who benefit from the industry (either financially or politically).

    We could've stopped contributing to climate change some time ago but we choose not to. We can even do it today but we won't. Change has been painstakingly way slower than necessary because some rich people decided it was not worth the effort.

    It's amazing what humans can achieve when we work together. We stopped using Chlorofluorocarbons and found viable alternatives when we decided it was worth the effort. We've eradicated smallpox ffs and we could've eradicated more diseases if we choose to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    That’s simply not true. We don’t even have the technology and resources today to achieve a zero carbon economy. We need a ton of new investment across a ton of industries.

    I think the average person believes that we can just switch gasoline cars over to EVs and we’re done. That’s not even close! Less than 1/6th of emissions come from transport (all cars, trucks, trains, and ships combined).

    Since CO2 emissions grow by about 0.9% per year, even if we eliminated all emissions from transport overnight (but did nothing else) it would buy us less than 20 years before emissions were back where we started.

    There’s no silver bullet that billionaires are somehow hiding from us. Curbing emissions is going to take huge investments across many different sectors of the economy and new technologies in many different industries. Take solar panels for example. We could not have achieved their modern levels of efficiency and production capacity without going through decades of advancement in semiconductor technology. No one was holding that technology back. It has seen enormous investment since the mid 20th century for the development of faster CPUs and GPUs. Solar simply rode on the coattails of the computer revolution. It could not have advanced the way it has on its own.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    Nah b....most of the misery in the world comes from people refusing to work on themselves.

    If more of us owned our flaws and pushed to be better, we’d lift up ourselves, our families, our neighborhoods, and our communities along with us.

    Edit: just ask yourself, "are you the most optimal version of yourself."

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -14 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    You should probably read more history.

    Lots of suffering for lots of reasons.

    "Life is pain, Highness, anyone saying otherwise is selling something"

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Oh, I enjoy studying history. And I find it terrible that apparently no one learns from history, because otherwise fascism would not be back in vogue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    Fascism sucks for any person that actually has to live under Fascism. Look at how Italy treated Fascism.

    They were like, oh, well, you want to eat fancy bread? You're not supporting your country! You eat the shit bread that the Fascists gave you, and you fucking like it!

    You should be happy that you're one of the people that's getting shitty bread! We can change that for you if you really don't like it.

  • source
  • parent