Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

cumskin_genocide ,

You think Gaia would embrace me in those tig ol'bitties

Bryanbat ,

Using the best signals, you can turn $500 into $3000 in just a few days of trading in the future and on the site, just start copying our signals and start enjoying your trades.As for a referral for good trading, checking out EXPERT ELOISE WILBERT ON INSTAGRAM, They have a user-friendly platform and offer a wide range of trading options.

Jakesvito ,

I completely concur, I have been consistent with my profit regardless of the market conditions, I got into the market early 2019 and the constant downtrends and losses discouraged me so I sold off, got back in Dec 2020 this time with guidance from an investment adviser that was recommended by a popular economist on a popular forum, long story short, its been years now and l've gained over $850k following guidance from my investment adviser. A referral for good trading, check out Veronica Tolan on Facebook , They have a user-friendly platform and offer a wide range of trading options. WhatsApp her directly; +44 7465283150

TakeBackAlberta ,

This is garbage. God gave man dominion over the earth.

OutlierBlue , (edited )

I don't believe your mythology, but imagine giving someone a wonderful gift to enjoy and live off, and they drop their pants and shit all over it.

TakeBackAlberta ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    kilgore_trout ,
    @kilgore_trout@feddit.it avatar

    Did you read what they wrote?

    TakeBackAlberta ,

    Yes. Communism is devil worship. No one has any right to what's mine and I have no requirement to contribute to a non-christian society or help non-christians. We're on our way there, but posts like this get in our way.

    AppleTea ,

    You worship the stock market and private property like a golden calf.

    Facebones ,

    Bad troll is bad.

    StupidBrotherInLaw ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    Psythik ,

    Why the fuck are you bringing up communism and "devil worship" when literally no one said anything about it?

    el_abuelo ,
    • sees someone disagree with their mythology
    • proceeds to assume they must be a communist and try and insult them

    You're not a very good Christian.

    Objection ,
    @Objection@lemmy.ml avatar

    Communism is devil worship

    Based, long live comrade Satan!

    Flax_vert ,

    Exactly. As a Christian we should be caretakers of the earth because God saw it and it was good and made us to look after it

    BoxerDevil ,

    And we are running it straight to hell

    TakeBackAlberta ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    BoxerDevil ,

    Oh look it's a fake Christian. Someone who doesn't follow what Christ told them to do.

    Krauerking ,

    No, just a shitty roleplaying troll.

    BoxerDevil ,

    Same difference

    Cryophilia ,

    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 ,

    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 ,

    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 ,

    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 ,

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

    Ropianos ,

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

    Cryophilia ,

    Mass extinctions are BAD. Not because of how it affects human society, Jesus Christ. They're just bad because we shouldn't be fucking up the planet. That should be a baseline moral understanding and it's terrifying that none of you are seeing it.

    BlueMagma ,

    I think you might have misread the message of this comic. It's not saying mass extinction is ok, or that we shouldn't try to preserve the environment. It's saying nature doesn't need us, and we are killing ourselves. Nature and life will go on long after climate change kill us all. It's saying humans are so egocentric they use the words "destroying the planet" when they only destroy themselves.

    Also as far as I know we can't live in space for very long currently.

    HawlSera ,

    We might be able to evolve and adapt to the harsh condition of space.... in a few generations of breeding in space.

    You see the Catch-22

    Cryophilia ,

    Nature needs us to stop destroying nature.

    Krauerking ,

    Just to touch on a problem but there.

    Humans can live IN SPACE.

    Ahhh no... We can habitat space. We really really can't live there.

    We can't really give birth or develop in space, gravity unlike ours will eventually deteriorate our bodies, even on Mars you will go blind and start developing clots before too long just from the slightly lower gravity. And that's nothing of the radiation we are blocked from here on Earth.

    The list is long and bad. We are adaptable but mostly on Earth adaptable. Able to survive climates and regions not everything ever. We can probably eventually figure out space but we can never just live there.

    So when we destroy the planet we might really just take ourselves out too.

    Cryophilia ,

    Of course we can. We could build a giant rotating shielded space station. We have all the technology, we just haven't done it because it's expensive.

    Krauerking ,

    I studied theoretical astrophysics as part of an earth and space exploration field.

    Trust me, we really don't just have all the technology. That doesn't answer a lot of problems and you are assuming our level of science.

    We might be able to figure out a good chunk of it if money is of no cost but that's no guarantee.

    Man not even to talk about material cost. It would take us decades.

    Cryophilia ,

    Name a few problems.

    Krauerking ,

    Yeah I am not inspired to actually bother answering that if you are coming into this without an expectation of an actual conversation.

    It sounds more like you want a fight and that's not what I'm doing.

    Space is not an easy answer. Even if you just want it to be.

    Cryophilia ,

    I don't really like "trust me bro" takes on things.

    Krauerking ,

    Yeah and you are doing the same. I pulled my credentials you just don't want to be wrong cause it hurts your feelings.

    Cryophilia ,

    I'm asking for examples of how it won't work. I've given examples of how I believe it would work.

    Krauerking ,

    Your example was a generic from science fiction vague statement about a shielded rotating space station.

    You have no experience or expertise to back up your statement.

    It ignores the extra damage a large space station takes from micro asteroids by being a larger target. It ignores fuel costs of moving something that large into orbit. It ignores food and oxygen limitations on populace. It ignores low gravity birth issues. Radiation issues. Issues of diseases, resources collection and management.

    You made a vague uneducated guess of an idea and demanded it be the requirement of others to prove you wrong.

    You took the same argument style of a maga conspiracy conservative.

    Stop being such a a child and a martyr.

    Cryophilia ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    Krauerking ,

    No.

    Cryophilia ,

    Removed by mod.

    Cryophilia ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    Krauerking ,

    It's a conversation. Are you really this upset just cause reality is less magical than science fiction?

    It's not a peanut gallery. It's the rest of the users on this site. The whole point of being here.

    Cryophilia ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    Krauerking ,

    The idea of living in space was on topic that you brought up.

    You were wrong about it.

    If you are upset then get off the Internet don't take it out on other people assuming you are the only one who is right.

    Cryophilia ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

    •
    Krauerking ,

    And then an emotional response instead of recognition. You really are immature and can't handle being wrong about a subject.

    No, you don't care. If you are wrong you are. Grow up and move on.

    No one else cares if you are incorrect either I was just trying to inform you the way you think you are informing others.

    Wiwiweb ,
    @Wiwiweb@sh.itjust.works avatar

    https://youtu.be/micqddM5mqk

    boatsnhos931 ,

    My hero! She gives and takes life without hesitation. If you can't cut it, you cease to exist. There is no discussion of politics, neurodivergency, gender, or religion. 🥰

    ndru ,

    Well, not until you brought it up.

    boatsnhos931 ,

    😞

    Kichae ,

    I see someone is asking to be dumped in the middle of the atlantic alone to test whether they "cut it" or not.

    boatsnhos931 ,

    The human race probably won't thrive in the Atlantic but if they are dumb enough to try we probably don't want them passing their genes on anyway

    unreasonabro ,

    This is the only correct perspective, and there are relatively few people specifically at fault for the lying that's been done to the public on important issues.

    Emmie ,

    Mother Gaia is a cruel and brutal bitch. Just read up on Darwin. No nazis killed as many beings as natural selection

    IlovePizza ,

    Or limited and fallible.

    technomad ,

    Mother Gaia is Savage 😳

    daltotron ,

    Nature doesn't have a consciousness, it just is. I think to anthropomorphize it as having one, to conceptualize it as being some kind of actor with goals or morals, is kind of to not understand it fundamentally, or to accept what it is. It's just another extension of the naturalist fallacy.

    That's not really to advocate, you know, for climate change, or what have you, but I also don't really believe that this is going to be the thing that takes people out, weirdly? I mean, certainly, the holocene extinction is going to be a thing, and it's going to cause mass human and animal suffering and extinction on a scale that is only precedented by meteors and the like. That's looking pretty inevitable, at this point, to me. The thing is, I don't think the species as a whole, the human species, really needs or relies on nature to survive, at this point. Pollinators, maybe, but aren't we at a point where corn and other crops upon which we rely for a good, like, 50% of our mass produced highly processed food is really reliant on a lot of "natural" things. Or, isn't reliant on like, nature, as a whole. It's all as a result of discrete resources which are highly individualized and pretty isolated. Maybe large amounts of the land becomes non-arable, I dunno.

    I think more broadly though, what I find to be slightly more probable than that as a counterargument is frankly that I can kind of imagine the end of the world, without the end of capitalism. Most people say it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, right, but they still imagine the end of the world as being kind of mutually inclusive to the end of capitalism. No, I think capitalism, I think capitalists, our plutocrats, our idiots in charge, would probably rather keep the planet on a tenuous kind of life support, where you don't really have non-globalized, local ecology, environmental variation, the like. I think they would rather prevent the apocalypse by whatever margin is most deemed most profitable. We have schemes for cloud-seeding to block out more UV light, which would probably kill a bunch of plants and mess up a ton of ecosystems from geographically irregular and potentially unpredictable irrigation. We have schemes for dumping huge amounts of iron oxide into the ocean to kickstart massive algae blooms that can sequester carbon dioxide and probably increase ocean acidification. We have schemes for genetically modifying human and food supply-threatening viruses and invasive species to start to self-terminate after the genes propagate to like, the seventh generation. Hell, there's even some level by which people might argue that invasive species are good, because they provide an inherent surplus population sourced from natural ecology that humans could kind of skim the top off. When those things end up going sideways, or otherwise threatening the bottom line, we'll probably start seeing people just implement more short term solutions, that kick the can five years down the road, while mass ecological and human extinctions are constantly ongoing and potential quality of life plummets for the general population. Apocalypse as an ongoing process, rather than as a singular event.

    Thinking that an ecological apocalypse would be the end of it, that humans are that easily crushed and nature can/will just go on totally unbothered, I think that's a rather optimistic viewpoint. It also missess the mass amounts of suffering which are currently ongoing by looking to some theoretical future, much like AI tech evangelists do with the singularity, idiot leftists tend to do with "the revolution", evangelicals do with the rapture. We need to, uhh, maybe figure out a better structure and approach, here.

    Hackworth ,

    We rely on nature for everything. The water wars will make that more apparent, I suppose.

    daltotron ,

    Yeah see, that's what I'm talking about. Like what the fuck would the water wars even be? That shit don't make no sense, it's not like water is a non-renewable resource. Freshwater is maybe a larger concern, right, but climate change means more solar heat which means more water evaporation which means more fresh rainwater and not less. Maybe in combination with increased acidification because of emissions and related things, maybe in combination with a decreased capacity to absorb that rainwater because of desertification and much increased rainwater runoff due to too large a volume of water for a dried out landscape. No part of that really involves a water war, though. That's just some pop culture shit.

    Hackworth ,

    Yes, the water wars will be about fresh water. No one goes to war over water that needs to be boiled. And no, climate change does not mean more fresh water.

    barsoap ,

    Nature doesn’t have a consciousness, it just is. I think to anthropomorphize it as having one, to conceptualize it as being some kind of actor with goals or morals, is kind of to not understand it fundamentally, or to accept what it is. It’s just another extension of the naturalist fallacy.

    There's a flipside to this, and that's the "blind nature" fallacy. Like Neodarwinists trying hard to ignore physiology and with that the fact that the way selection works is not a random process, but a process employing randomness strategically: The natural error in DNA transcription is quite high, correction mechanisms then bring that down to virtually zero, then, after that, mutations are introduced again. And it makes a hell a lot of sense: If you have a finch which has trouble getting food it's much more fruitful to mess around with the beak shape than to mess with mitochondrial DNA. Our genome and physiology has ways of detecting environmental pressure and reacting to it on that kind of level. Any genomic line containing that kind of capability is way more fit in the ways of adapting than one that doesn't, thus, it out-competes the others. Long since has. In case you have an hour for a physiology lecture.

    Is it "a mind"? Well, it depends on your definition of mind. But it's definitely not "mindless": It's deliberate. It's not blindly throwing shit at the wall, it's strategically throwing shit at the wall and coming down to it our minds don't have a better strategy, either.

    Cryophilia ,

    Thinking that an ecological apocalypse would be the end of it, that humans are that easily crushed and nature can/will just go on totally unbothered, I think that’s a rather optimistic viewpoint. It also missess the mass amounts of suffering which are currently ongoing by looking to some theoretical future, much like AI tech evangelists do with the singularity, idiot leftists tend to do with “the revolution”, evangelicals do with the rapture. We need to, uhh, maybe figure out a better structure and approach, here.

    We need to be blasting this shit into the ears of everyone on lemmy, 24/7. Bunch of fucking secular cultists. Wake the fuck up and smell the shit you're walking in, and then grab a shovel.

    EmperorHenry , (edited )
    @EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    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 ,

    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.

    oce ,
    @oce@jlai.lu avatar

    No no no, it's way more comfortable thinking that I don't have to make any big efforts because it's only the responsibility of some elite.

    Fillicia ,

    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.

    MindTraveller ,

    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 ,

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

    MindTraveller ,

    No, because we have lower emissions than annoying car drivers like you.

    EmperorHenry ,
    @EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    I can't use public transit. And I don't want to live in a 15-minute city either. I like my big rural town with tons of free space between every home. 1000 regular people driving cars isn't even 10% of one billionaire flying in a private jet once.

    Have you ever noticed how all these environmental regulations only affect us? Or how we're the only ones looked at as being the ones who need to "cut back" on things WE like?

    But billionaires and millionaires are never expected to change anything THEY do to help the environment.

    I've also noticed that climate change isn't nearly as bad as authoritarian, anti-free-speech assholes like Al Gore says it is. Al Gore said there wouldn't be any ice in the polar regions by 2013, we're 11 years past that and there's still ice there.

    I honestly don't know if climate change is real, because half the studies are funded by oil companies and the other half of studies are funded by evil groups that want us to live in pods and eat bugs, the olde "you will own nothing and be happy" types.

    I keep hearing from the latter that we're all going to die because of climate change at whatever date they say, then we pass that time and we're still here.

    MindTraveller ,

    https://davidbent.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/attachment.png

    meowMix2525 , (edited )

    Look dude it's awesome that you like your rural town and the big truck you probably take to grab a big mac from the nearest McDonald's and all and there is nothing wrong with you personally liking that, but I like big cities. I like having everything I need, plenty of diverse entertainment and new friends to make, all within a 15 minute walk from me; being able to hop on a bike, tram or train to get anywhere further than that; the livelihood of living amongst other walking, talking, living, breathing humans; living amongst green spaces that people actually use and that I don't have to personally maintain, that exist for a reason other than being a non-location that you pass through and don't really think about on your way from a to b. I currently can't have that at a reasonable quality without either having a damn near million dollar salary, moving several states away from my friends and family, and/ or just leaving the country altogether.

    Nobody is saying towns that need cars to get around can't exist, we are saying that walkable cities and towns are actually really good for our society and small business and the fucking tax revenue keeping your beloved money-pit suburbs and rural towns afloat. We are saying that there should be more places where humans come before cars, made available for the people that want them; just as badly as you want your free space between every home; rather than owning a home and a car in a bleak patchwork of corn fields, manicured bluegrass, and crumbling asphalt being the only real option for the vast majority of the country.

    Heck, I'm honestly not even asking for big cities or any crazy amount of density. Americans have a hard time conceptualizing this before they travel and see it for themselves, god knows I did, but I'm not talking Manhattan. Literally just take any historical district of 1-over-1 or 3-over-1 mixed-use buildings in an American town (usually all that remains is a single block but they do still dot the country and are beloved places of commerce and leisure), expand that by a radius of 10 or so blocks, slap a tram, a couple buses, plenty of bike lanes, and a pedestrian-only zone or two in the middle of it, and boom you have yourself the lively and functional cross between a suburban town and a densely populated city that worked in America long before everyone was convinced they needed a car, and has adapted well to cars in Europe.

    You see, we deliberately killed our cities when we flattened huge swaths of them to build freeways, parking lots, and arterial roads through them in order for whites to move somewhere that blacks were priced and redlined out of. We cut off our nose to spite our face and as a result, a lot of the issues we see in this country today are symptomatic of that era of government subsidized suburbanization.

    This is not the natural order of things, we did not get here by suburbia and rural towns with their car-dependent lifestyles simply being superior in some way to cities and moderately dense towns, and we won't go back by forcing people out of their homes and into tenements and taking their cars away. We simply have to fix what was destroyed and give people a choice and if they want to, they will move on their own. Many of those people will likely find that a car just isn't worth the investment anymore. I would bet my life savings that a good chunk of people would choose that over the suburban sprawl that is currently the default.

    EmperorHenry ,
    @EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    the big truck

    It's a motorcycle actually.

    KairuByte ,
    @KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    “We can’t do 100% so why are we talking about 20%?”

    MindTraveller ,

    We can do 100%. You pessimists need to start thinking bigger. We can do it.

    Objection ,
    @Objection@lemmy.ml avatar

    Personal vehicles and animal agriculture are responsible for way more than 30% of emissions, it would be impossible to get 70% reduction without touching them. 100% reduction is not possible, necessary, or desirable, some industry is necessary to maintain basic necessities.

    I think what you're trying to say is that it's necessary to address personal vehicles and animal agriculture to adequately address climate change, which is true and valid. But the way you've phrased it comes across as unreasonable.

    MindTraveller ,

    Neurotypicals are so picky. I deliberately tell them 70% might be possible just to seem extra reasonable and concilatory, and it's still not enough.

    Objection ,
    @Objection@lemmy.ml avatar

    I'm not NT but maybe I can give some advice, constructive criticism as someone who agrees with your overall point.

    I think being generous on that point backfired because it made the other changes seem less necessary. It meant being more insistent on other points, which are more subjective, like, "exactly where do you draw the line between sacrificing for the environment vs maintaining quality of life?" It's better to be generous on questions like that while sticking to your guns on facts you can support with data.

    It could also help to point out that lifestyle changes are something people can do right now, while regulations have to go through political processes with lots of money working against them.

    Also I just realized you may have been referencing carbon neutrality when you say "100% reduction." The way I (and I think others) interpreted it was not "net zero emissions" but just "zero emissions." The planet removes some carbon naturally, so it's ok to have some pollution, we don't need to go back to living in mud huts or anything. The question is, where can we get the most bang for our buck in reducing overall emissions to bring us closer to net zero, and the answers are the things you mentioned.

    MindTraveller ,

    Yeah, I meant carbon neutrality. Carbon neutrality is the first step to preventing runaway climate collapse. When we reach carbon neutrality, it'll keep getting hotter, but the rate at which it gets hotter won't be increasing anymore. We need to be carbon negative in order to prevent further warming.

    We're still going to need to have some emissions, like from farting, but meat and cars are easy to get rid of. Those changes actually have a negative cost, because cars and meat are already bad for reasons besides climate change. I got rid of them and it was easy and it made my life better.

    I would want to get rid of meat and cars before we get rid of things like intercontinental container ships. Those ships are actually super efficient for the amount of cargo they carry, and I think intercontinental trade is an absolute necessity. The main problem with container ships is just how much disposable garbage we're shipping and how much we've moved away from local industry. But intercontinental industry is definitely going to be a necessity in some ways if we want to have an advanced society. Cheeseburgers? Not so much.

    Objection ,
    @Objection@lemmy.ml avatar

    Based. I've also cut out meat and got rid of my car (have had to rent/borrow bc reasons) and yeah I agree with you 100%.

    Skates ,

    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.

    EmperorHenry ,
    @EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    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 hate that argument. I can't use public transit and most cities are too big to be walkable.

    I also hate the idea of walkable cities, which is a dog-whistle-word for 15-minute cities, full of surveillance and all kinds of other bullshit, like not being able to go back the way you came and having to walk all around the entire town to go back home.

    HowManyNimons ,

    That's not what 15 minute cities are.

    AppleTea ,

    You're getting surveillance regardless of walkablity. Amazon is happy enough to hand Ring camera footage over to authorities no questions asked.

    racketlauncher831 ,

    You said you can't use public transit twice but neither time did you specify why.

    EmperorHenry ,
    @EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    You said you can’t use public transit twice but neither time did you specify why.

    I'm disabled in several ways, I don't want to talk about it.

    blind3rdeye ,

    Someone has been feeding you some weird bullshit about 15-minute cities. The concept of 15-minutes cities has nothing whatsoever to do with the things you wrote.

    VinnyDaCat , (edited )

    Sure, but those regulations have to be stuff like “no selling petroleum to people for their cars”. Are you ready for a carless world?

    Are we just going to act like electric vehicles don't exist or that the quality of EVs would be significantly higher if the current fuel and car industry wasn't hindering their development at every turn?

    I get the feeling you're just on some ego trip about how you're ready to return to nature, while the rest of the lower classes around the world aren't ready to go as far as you are, despite the fact that it's not even necessary.

    Our infrastructure and our technology can change and evolve to co-exist and support the environment much better. People can retain many of their modern convivences of life while preserving nature. It will be more expensive for the wealthy at the top, more time consuming, and perhaps not exactly the same, but it can be done.

    MindTraveller ,

    you're ready to return to nature

    No, I'm trans. I need to take hormones every day or I'll want to kill myself. I wear glasses and I can't do without them. I love processed food, as long as it's vegan. Instant ramen and potato crisps make up a significant portion of my diet. I can't do without the internet. Constant information and stimulation keep the voices in my head quiet enough to be bearable. I love technology, there's no place for me in a primitive world. I'd die.

    Our infrastructure and our technology can change and evolve to co-exist and support the environment much better.

    I know. And cars aren't the way. Cars are destructive to communities, they kill people with startling regularity, and even when they're working properly on an electric battery they release PM10 pollution that gives kids asthma and allergies, and they stunt cognitive development for the people inside them.

    The answer is public transit and bicycles. We don't need to return to monke, we need to build cross continental high speed rail. The technologies to make our lives better exist and they're not cars. Not even electric cars.

    VinnyDaCat ,

    My apologies for assuming then. It genuinely came off as pretentious and I'm sorry for misunderstanding.

    I also wasn't aware of the side effects and dangers that even EVs had. I agree that public transit should be invested in more, but I at least thought using EVs as a transition phase would help.

    MindTraveller ,

    Electric cars are only an effective solution if we're waiting around for capitalism to fix our problems. Which we shouldn't be doing. If the government is actually putting in an effort, then it's more cost effective and faster to build trains and trams and rail. Electric cars let people do a little more good in a world where nobody else is. But they're not the future, not a future we can look forward to. The EVs of the future are trains, bicycles, trams, buses, scooters, skateboards, fire engines, and ambulances.

    Living carfree makes my life better. But people don't realise that. I say "you better be ready like me", and you think I'm an anprim. Nah, I love technology. And I also like getting exercise when I go places like nature intended. I like the vitamin D, I like the cortisol, I like the lack of guilt. I like bringing my bike on the train and playing with my phone on the way. I like never needing to seriously worry about parking. I like knowing I'm not part of the problem. And I really like knowing that no matter how badly I fuck up, I'll never get someone else killed through carelessness.

    The future is awesome! Walkable neighbourhoods and a public transit system the government actually invests are amazing. I'm very lucky to live somewhere that both of those are true. It's great in the future, come over here!

    But psychologically, people are stubborn. They're scared of change. They'll resist it. People don't know what's good for them, they only know what's comfortable. So come join us in the future now, don't wait, and don't risk the possibility that you'll end up an old fart holding the human race back with your reliance on the technology of the past.

    gimsy ,

    Yes and stop selling bullshit electric vehicles, there is already the solution: public transport

    Electric vehicles are another boost to the super rich car industry

    EmperorHenry ,
    @EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    I can't use public transit. So I guess if there's no cars, I'll be stuck at my house forever.

    HowManyNimons ,

    Nobody said "no cars". I'd like to see much fewer cars, and public transport that almost everyone can use.

    gimsy ,

    That's exactly the problem, you should be able to

    EmperorHenry ,
    @EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

    That’s exactly the problem, you should be able to

    I'm disabled in several ways, I don't want to talk about it.

    Krauerking ,

    Wow. Such a martyr. Willing to stay at home forever because they have been told individual cars have an impact towards climate change that you don't believe in.

    People would rather the world burn than be inconvenienced even a little.

    thedeadwalking4242 ,

    Unfortunately we do still need cars. Mostly for things like farm use and last mile transportation. Having everyone live in a city near a train line is a great idea but you it definitely won't happen. Electric cars is the compromise we need to make with people in rural areas

    gimsy ,

    Ok, but that is not the target group electric cars are targeting, see all Tesla models

    Including "cyber truck" (always makes me chuckle to think that they are really trying to sell that crap)

    Edit:typos

    thedeadwalking4242 ,

    Yeah Elon musk is a cuck and I'm not advocating for any specific manufacturer but realistically we will need some cars in the future no matter what. So I'd rather them be electric

    NocturnalMorning , (edited )

    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.

    grrgyle ,
    @grrgyle@slrpnk.net avatar

    Up and to the right. Line must go up.

    yetiftw ,

    you missed the point completely. life has always survived mass extinction events and will survive this one too. life will eventually flourish once again and humanity will have been a blip in earths history

    MindTraveller ,

    Right, the Gaia presented in this comic is a mother nature who does not give a shit about the lives of billions of animals. She only cares if life as a whole survives, she doesn't care how many species go extinct and become lost forever. Only humans care about that.

    Humans are the universe's way of giving a shit about itself.

    xenoclast ,

    Going through? Yes. Causing? Yes. Could have modified or prevented it? Also yes in countless and effective ways over literally centuries.

    Will we? No. No, we will not.

    thegreatgarbo ,

    Humans are basically just another massive asteroid hitting earth. And just as mindless.

    HessiaNerd ,

    Yeah, the 6th mass extinction.

    venoft ,
    @venoft@lemmy.world avatar

    Nature will survive, this specific bird species perhaps not.

    LifeInMultipleChoice ,

    This specific bird is way to forgiving. It's more like saying if on average 1 species dies every million years on average, we have killed thousands of species in a thousand years. Then throw in the idea that we also could say the percentage of population of those species we killed would be over half of them, we can say to ourselves, yeah this is really being accelerated. Mass extinction has already begun. People who say humans will survive it are optimistic because our adaptability.
    It's more like if you want your descendants to be able to go outside and be able to breathe without life support systems, you should so something about it.

    Krauerking ,

    There is a science fiction story I love but can never find.

    It was about a society that was deep into climate change. Humans lived in giant concrete bunkers and never went outside. The oceans and land was fucked but we managed optimize it all to keep living. Farm the ocean for plankton for food and oxygen.
    Set a limit on how many humans we could have and how much food, water and activity you could do in a day to preserve resources.
    And one man had managed to save a small patch of grass at the cost of a little bit of his own water. Until it was discovered and deemed an unoptimized flaw and burned.

    I think of that story when I think of humans surviving climate change a lot. I think about it whenever I think I would like to have kids.

    BluesF ,

    Some things yes, most things... Not by a long shot.

    NocturnalMorning ,

    You could always google it instead of denying that it's happening.

    Holzkohlen ,

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

    NocturnalMorning ,

    Maybe the old ones who will die soon. But everybody else, including their children will be affected.

    KillingTimeItself ,

    story of my life, i hope.

    I think it'll be funny to have a well known legacy, but without people having any idea of who the fuck i am.

    God speed humanity, you fucking suck.

    Tattorack ,
    @Tattorack@lemmy.world avatar

    I've been saying this for years.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • comicstrips@lemmy.world
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •