• SuperDuper@lemmy.world
    26·
    9 months ago

    That’s a good point, but let me offer this as a counterargument: Mammon demands that we offer up the planet and all living species at the sacrificial altar of capitalism and he shall not be denied

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        I’ll second the book… read it in highschool,

        It’s a bit sick-puppet-ish, but it’s still a good read.

        • Xoriff@lemmy.ml
          1·
          8 months ago

          “sick-puppet-ish”. Haven’t heard that one before. Checked urban dictionary but… I’m guessing that’s not what you were going for?

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            8 months ago

            Sorry that should have been sock puppet.

            It’s a (usually bad) way to make an argument; you stand up a false opponent to argument, but because you’re writing both sides they tend to come around.

            You’ll see it a lot in “FAQs” put out by, for example, religiously minded folks “Sinners always ask how Boba Fet got out of the Sarlac pit”

            (Answer: he didn’t that’s a Disney myth to sell more merch.)

  • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
    204·
    9 months ago

    While this is technically true, we wouldn’t be such a strain on the ecosystem if we didn’t consume so much per person.

    • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
      28·
      9 months ago

      I think the per-person metric is a poor metric when talking about damaging consumption.

      Yes, we can all lower our standards of living in developed countries and also transition to more communal transport and utility systems (you can do this right now, within your means and comfort), but a very large portion (a majority I think, in fact) of the human race have standards of living that arguably are so low that they should be raised.

      This metric also completely misses the exponentially higher amount of devastation caused directly from mass production consumerist capitalism. Shifting to economic systems which make only what is reasonable while also not denying those in need would likely be the biggest move towards sustainability.

      • itsmect
        3·
        9 months ago

        The per person metric is great! ~If you are a large corporation and need to shift blame that is.~

        Yes, extraordinary personal consumption can make things way worse, but lowering your standards can only improve things so much until you hit the limit. imho the solution lies in using the resources we have more efficiently, so that people can sustain and improve their living conditions, while greatly reducing the ecological burden. If you demand that people shall lower their standards for the greater good, it will work about as good as telling them to wear a mask during a respiratory pandemic.

    • funkajunk@lemm.eeEnglish
      15·
      9 months ago

      I’m not burning down the amazon so I can make more money on palm oil.

      There is such a thing as “supply and demand” , but consumerist culture originates from the top, not the bottom.

    • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
      7·
      9 months ago

      Isn’t that exactly what is said? The growth of people x consumption is finite and there needs to be a system change to represent that. It does not specify how the factors are balanced in relation to each other.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    7·
    9 months ago

    You guys heard of this new one, the growing earth theory? Kinda like flat earth people, these ones believe that the earth is growing from inside and the land mass is expanding but the government, for some reason doesn’t want us to know! Lol

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    4·
    9 months ago

    I wonder if anywhere in the universe some civilization decided that it’s against their interests to progress through industrial stage because of the environmental impact.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        5·
        9 months ago

        really we’ve been able to do so for decades now, the solutions have been present since the invention of the electic motor basically.

        the only reason we still burn so much fossil fuel is because it makes rich people even richer.

      • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de
        21·
        9 months ago

        To me it was explained in the following way:

        The dharma consists of three parts:

        1. The “dao”, which is the thing that you want to protect. For example your house, your family.

        2. The work that you have to do to fulfill your protection. Like, necessary maintenance on the house, bringing food on the table, caring for your family.

        3. Finally, it is the interaction with the environment. Because your house isn’t the only object in the world, and sooner or later you have to talk to your neighbors.

        I agree that the wikipedia article doesn’t really discuss that, and I guess that there’s different interpretations of the dharma, just like there’s different interpretations of christianity. But that’s how a friend explained it to me, and it makes total sense to me. :-)

        Edit: So the connection is, that in the case of the meme, it is the earth that you want to protect. And to do this, you have to take the appropriate actions, like building your infrastructure around renewable energy, and stuff like this.

    • explodicle@local106.comEnglish
      3·
      9 months ago

      That’s a nice coastline you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something more expensive than Pigouvian taxes happened to it.