• WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        For the love of christ, stop saying that. Every single time someone makes this comment. We. Get. It.

        • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Do we? Because the absolutely astonishing sense of self-importance humans have would indicate otherwise.

          Other beings live here, and while humans fuck humans over in the name of greed and power, we bulldoze entire ecosystems without any consideration for the other creatures that lived here whatsoever.

          No, you’re wrong. Most humans live, act, and speak as if the entire world, hell the entire universe, should be bent to better serve our naive, entitled species exclusively.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s a thought-terminating cliche that serves to downplay the problem because “hurr durr the animals will be okay” (even though they actually won’t since we’re in the middle of the Anthropocene mass extinction, but never mind that) and to act as a derailment tactic.

            • r1veRRR@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t read it that way, quite the opposite. So, so many people act like this is mostly about protecting the climate or the environment or animals, not about protecting our way of life. The way so many frame it as protecting the earth makes it so easy to make it sound optional.

              But the world will be okay, it doesn’t need protecting. It’s the 8 billion humans that RELY on the world AS IT IS NOW that will be fucked. It’s human protection, not ecological protection.

            • kava@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nature will inevitably adjust. This isn’t the first mass extinction and it won’t be the last. I’m more concerned about agriculture and how the changing climate could lead to mass starvation, refugee issues, etc. The animals can inherit the Earth after we blow ourselves up with nukes.

          • foo@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            35
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Only an idiot thinks that when we say *we are destroying the planet " they literally means the planet will explode or something. It’s clear that we mean the only part of the planet that is meaningful for us, the biosphere.

            • blue_zephyr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Which we also won’t destroy. Life on earth will adapt, but we’re making it inhospitable for ourselves.

              • narp@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Well, I guess all the life forms that are going extinct through the Holocene/anthropogene extinction event, which humans caused, don’t matter?

                Sure there will be life on earth and it will adapt, but don’t act like we’re not taking down whole families of plants and animals with us… because it’s already happening.

              • foo@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Again Sherlock, nobody is talking about the frame of view of random animals that may or may not be fine. We are only talking about our frame of reference.

                If you actually considered the semantics of “technically some people will still be alive but living in a mad max like apocalypse or jellyfish will be fine” means that our biosphere hasn’t been destroyed for humans you are being ridiculously pedantic.

              • FireMyth@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Look genius- we know the planet will be just fine. When ppl say we are destroying the planet we obvious (except to you) are talking about our own survival on the planet.

            • r1veRRR@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But it’s the idiots that CONSTANTLY argue that the world will be fine. The framing of it as protection of animals/the planet/the climate makes it incredibly easy for people to pretend it’s optional, not directly related to them. This isn’t a hypothetical point, EVERY SINGLE climate discussion I’ve ever witnessed some mouthbreather has argued that “the climate will continue to exist, it doesn’t need protecting”.

              What needs protecting isn’t the planet, the ecology, the animals or plants, it’s US. It’s ENTIRELY an US problem.

        • DarkSpectrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are a lot of people still waking up to the situation so I think it’s worth saying even if you personally have heard it many times.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed, we and other land mammals will suffer greatly, but life on Earth is hearty and just as the great George Carlin said, once we’re gone, the planet will heal itself from the failed mutation that was homo sapien.

    • whatisallthis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The one thing that makes me feel better is that all those greedy billionaires will also be dead.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      in the name of insatiable capitalist greed

      The communist and socialist countries aren’t using any less oil either. We can’t fix a problem if we are blaming random things.

      The path forward is nuclear and renewables for the next decades while we wait for grid-scale energy storage problems to be solved.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          24
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, Scandinavian countries just have a healthy government. Countries like China have awful, awful climate impacts, much worse off than most other countries. Though, them and France at least have started a nuclear build-out, which is needed to 100% de-carbonize the grid.

          • ramenbellic@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            China manages to be the manufacturing hub of the world AND have a lower carbon footprint per capita than the United States. We don’t have time to keep pointing fingers and making excuses, we need to be making changes.

          • kescusay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I… don’t think we disagree? China has a corrupt communist government. I was specifically referring to socialist governments, and the ones that are frequently (mis)labelled as socialist are doing a lot better on oil consumption than either China or the United States.

            • Robaque@feddit.it
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If you’re splitting hairs about communism, socialism, and “mislabelling” (even though socialism is a generic term that encompasses communism…?), why are you describing China’s government as communist? Communism is (ideally, at least) stateless, and like all socialist idologies it is fundamentally anti-capitalist.

              You’re right that the Nordic model isn’t socialist, though. It’s a blend of social democracy and corporatism.

            • nrezcm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              How is it not true? Per capital they are lower but that doesn’t mean much when you have over a billion people. I think a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful awful climate impacts.

              • kenbw2@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                It’s a bit disingenuous to blame a country for having high emissions when it has 10x the number of people

                That means it needs 10x the amount of electricity, vehicle fuel etc.

                By the same logic, the Vatican City is a world leader in climate policy.

                Should we start comparing China with the Americas and Europe combined? Because that’s a more like-for-like comparison

                • nrezcm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Which is why I said a more accurate sentence would be most industrialized nations have awful climate impact. Diluting their impact behind a per capita graph is misleading. Also out of all my travels in the world China has been the only country I could visibly see that impact without having traveled to it or even being super close. The morning chemical smog I’d see in Korea on a regular basis compares to nothing else I’ve seen and I’ve lived in some pretty dirty regions.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The communist and socialist countries aren’t using any less oil either. We can’t fix a problem if we are blaming random things.

        I’ve come to accept that there isn’t hope to stop the runaway train of unchecked capitalist greed, at least not without the hard lesson of collapse and rebuild, and that means there will be apologists like you screaming that the ship (Our habitable world) isn’t sinking as you’re waist deep in ocean(city destroying weather events, crop failures, heat deaths, fresh water crises, etc).

        That used to bother me, but I’ve come to appreciate you as the comedy relief you are in this tragedy. So by all means, keep crowing about how competition between humans in matters of life and death are “healthy” and how the capital markets will save us from the capital markets that don’t care about any future that is more than a fiscal quarter out, and will do anything they can get away with against the species for an extra nickel for shareholders.

        I’m sure the benevolence of the sliver of the population that came to own almost everything through Extensive, merciless exploitation and sociopathy “rational self-interest” will swoop in to save you and your loved ones for your devotion.

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

          Nobody is willing to tolerate a drop in quality of life for the climate. Third worlders like the Chinese have finally gotten a taste for a little meat with supper and they aren’t going to give it up so easily.

          I don’t even think this is inherently capitalist. It’s a human issue. Obviously capitalism messes up incentives - so companies like ExxonMobil will deliberately lie about emissions or what have you and create PR campaigns to influence people into more carbon emissions.

          So capitalism definitely makes it worse in that regard - but the ultimate cause of this is 8 trillion humans who want access to smartphones, cars, globalized consumer products, laptops, A/C, etc

          The only real way to reduce carbon emissions to a point it won’t inevitably fuck up the planet is not to have humans exist in a large scale industrial society. Go ahead and campaign on that as a politician. It ain’t happening. We’re burning this bitch to the ground.

          For what it’s worth, it’ll take a couple of centuries before we really start to feel the effects in full. Sure, a few unusual heatwaves here and there seem serious but it’s nothing like what’s coming.