• electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ask yourself “where is the greatest leverage to solve this problem?”. If you think the fastest way to turn the climate ship around is to convince 7ish billion individuals to go vegan, and ride bikes… Good luck!

      • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hmm. I’m not really banking on anything. I’m just surviving. Hoping for the best but expecting something less optimal. I’m not a doomer because believe too much in love. Not that it will save us, but that it’s the only thing that truly makes life worth living. Whatever it is, we’re all in it together.

          • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think if you love yourself and others, then it is obvious what is good and what isn’t.

              • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean, sure. But you can’t just convince a critical mass of people to understand love. If we’re gonna turn the ship, we’ll need to find something else to leverage. Regulations seem like the most obvious point to me.

                  • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What do you mean? Government. This is the only real chance given the scale and timeliness of the change needed.

        • raginghummus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “I’m not really banking on anything. I’m just surviving.” Sorry if I misunderstood but that sounds like you’re not helping?

          • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not banking on anything, as in “I don’t have strong faith in any proposed solutions”. I’m just surviving in the sense that, like so many of us, I’m doing my best to maintain my physical and mental health during these difficult times. For me, like so many of us, “doing something” me to maintain my physical and mental health.

            I don’t blame you for misunderstanding me. I can see how my previous comment could have come off that way. I do also want to say though, that “not helping” is okay too. If you don’t have the capacity right now to do anything but exist, I understand. It’s fuckin tough out there for a lot of people.

            • raginghummus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Taking care of yourself is so important, lots of respect for that. And you are totally right, it’s okay (vital in fact!) to take breaks, to get away from it all. I apologise, I’ve seen too many online comments saying something derogatory towards those trying to do what they can while clearly sitting on the sidelines. Really appreciate your thoughtful response!

    • Rediphile
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We all ought to focus on that whole 7 billion thing…or wait, isn’t it 8 now? Will be 9 soon.

      Infinite population growth in a world of finite resources is not, and never will be, possible. Less people = more resources per person and higher quality of life.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        any policy of population control is necessarily eugenecist. you can personally favor it, but kindly keep it away from politics.

        • Rediphile
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits. I never suggested anything like that at all.

          And sorry, discussion of population controls need to enter politics as that is literally the only meaningful way to fight climate change.

          But yeah, I’m not hopeful lol so you don’t have much to worry about. We will probably just continue to not take any meaningful action and continue to destroy our climate and world.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not eugenics, by definition, if it doesn’t favor any specific traits.

            what policy can you introduce that doesn’t favor a specific trait?

                • Rediphile
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Literally everyone in the age range to be a potential parent. Perhaps drawn once a year. The winners can have children this year, while the others cannot. If both people in a couple win they can have two or something. Non-heteronormative couples and artificial insemination is fine. If someone wins and chooses not to have children that year or is unable for whatever that’s completely fine.