this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
36 points (90.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43777 readers
2316 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not short-term, but absolutely in the long run, since it definitely would make it a lot easier for natural balance to fix itself if we stopped messing with it. "The planet™" has recovered from other accidents before, humans are just another speed bump. It surely wouldn't hurt if we just stopped pumping greenhouse gasses into the air today.
I think you're severely overestimating our capabilities as a species. It's always easier to break something than to fix it and it took us a good few decades to fuck up our climate in the first place. I admire your optimism regarding humanity, but I honestly think it's futile. As long as there's money to be made, no amount of regular people trying to save the planet is going to make any impact. Or in other words: the world won't be saved below 13 figures.
No the hell I'm not. You asked for "the best way", i.e. the most efficient way, to save animals. Answer: Since humans are the biggest threat to all of nature (that includes animals), less humans = higher chance of survival for everything else. If you asked "what's the best way to increase Zebra populations" I would've said "get rid of lions", but that doesn't mean I'd advocate for it! If you want something to live, the easiest way to achieve that is to remove what's killing it. And when it comes to most species, that, more often than not, is humans. No bad faith, no disingenuity, just the simple observatoin that the most dangerous threat to all living things on earth are humans and everthing else would be way better off if we weren't around. Nowhere did I ever mention that it's something I'd actually recommend anyone to do.
For the same reason the best non-morbid thing people can do to help save the climate is not having children, since the environmental impact of having a child is up to 58,6 tonnes of additional carbon each year.