this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
351 points (100.0% liked)

196

16553 readers
3006 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Godort@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I mean, shrinking the population would absolutely help assuming that you shrunk it enough.

It's hard to destroy an environment when the destroyers dont exist.

[–] IninewCrow@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

It would be more efficient if we shrunk the power of the wealthiest individuals and made everyone fall under a wealthy limit

Why should one person own and control so much wealth when they will never realistically be able to enjoy all of that wealth during their lifetime? Especially if that one person hoarding all that wealth they'll never use is producing, creating and maintaining so much pollution for one individual.

[–] zephr_c@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

We better make sure to completely eradicate all life on Earth down to the tiniest microbe just to be certain that life like us doesn't evolve again, I guess.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, or we could just ban super yachts, private jets, cruise ships and empower those indigenous communities who have had such meaningful successes to spread their ideas and understanding so that we can begin to develop a sustainable culture, and we don’t need to kill half the worlds population.

[–] LucyLastic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

¿por que no los dos?

Also, not half the population, more like 99.9% of it. Start with the richest first, and work your way down.

[–] BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tf 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, were you paying attention? The answer to why not is because it’s eco-fascist rhetoric and I’m not an eco-fash.