Asklemmy

43944 readers

540 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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

539

Whats your such opinion (discuss.tchncs.de)

submitted 11 months ago by cryptix@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

1364 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] stewie3128@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

And you are going to magically manage energy demand through gentle suggestion?

[–] kot@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'll ignore the smuglord response for the onlookers and bite anyway No, I'm not going to "magically" solve anything. Overpopulation is a malthusian reactionary myth and often two steps away from claiming that the poors have too many babies. The reason why the environment is being destroyed is because of capitalism. It's simply not profitable for the people in charge to switch for cleaner types of energy or to look for any solutions whatsoever. The fact that you think the solution to this is not communism, but that everyone should die, is telling. Another comrade has put it better than I can:

The United States, for example, is 4% of the World's population but still uses 25% of the world's resources annually. The United States outsources their pollution and their production to the third world, where the labor is cheapest due to imperialism, and then says "the third world is responsible for the climate change because of their carbon emissions! We need to cut down on the number of people!"

[–] stewie3128@hexbear.net 1 points 11 months ago

Communism is better than nothing, but it's going to have to be a global communism to make a difference, since any one of us on the planet can clearly consume 5x+++ their share of resources annually.

Even if we got 75% of the world population with the program, we could still have a consumption problem 5x that of America, because the greatest consumers will be the last to join the revolution.

Climate Stalin is the only thing that might, might improve the situation we're going to find ourselves in. Other than that, we're just going to pollute ourselves and everyone else to extinction, hence my belief that all non-human flora and fauna would be better off without us.