758

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

104 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Disclaimer: This is a joke. Ecofascism is obviously bad, kids. Don't be that guy.

https://theconversation.com/8-billion-people-why-trying-to-control-the-population-is-often-futile-and-harmful-194369

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

[-] lugal@sopuli.xyz 109 points 10 months ago

Don't do this, but remember: the richer a person is, the bigger the ecological footprint. You are higher on that list than you might realize. Especially ecofascists tend to forget that fact.

[-] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 53 points 10 months ago

Yeah you know what would actually be better? Fixing legislation so that the 100 companies that create the majority of pollution stop doing that

[-] DessertStorms@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago

Lmmfao, yeah good luck with that.. (hint: the people who own those companies also own the government who makes the laws, there is no reforming capitalism, it's designed that way)

[-] candyman337@sh.itjust.works 20 points 10 months ago

I don't disagree with this but the offered alternative is checks notes GENOCIDE

[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Genocide is happening right now in the current system. Some learned from past mistakes some didn't. We can do better either way.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago

They own the people in government, not the government itself. Change the people, change the ownership.

The trick is you have to start small, cause the ones in the bigger positions rely on the small ones to maintain their power.

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago

The problem is that to obtain those big pistons, you need the financial backing of those big companies. So eventually as an honest politician climbs the ladder, he has to sell out, or fizzle out. You can't win federal elections without PAC money.

[-] Zorque@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

Until you hit critical mass on those small politicians, and they change the playing field. The problem is seeing them only as stepping stones on the way to greatness, and not as a power in their own right.

[-] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago

Even better than that is changing the system so the 100 companies are no longer around to create a majority of pollution.

[-] Pipoca@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

The statistic that "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions" is better understood as "Just 100 companies responsible for selling 71% of global fossil fuels". It's fundamentally saying that there's a few large coal, oil and gas companies worldwide selling us most of the supply.

If you want those companies to stop polluting, that amounts to those companies not selling fossil fuels.

Which is honestly the goal, but the only way to do that is to replace the demand for fossil fuels. Cutting the US off from fossil fuels would kill a ton of people if you didn't first make an energy grid 100% powered by renewables, got people to buy electric cars, cold climate heat pumps, etc.

[-] TheGreenGolem@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

That's true! But I think more than one "front" can be open in this battle. And we also need the ones that can be won quicker or easier. Or at least start those too.

[-] orwellianlocksmith@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

How do you think we could stop the pollution from those companies (most of which are oil producers) without also directly impacting normal people? There's no way of getting at the structural that avoids individual change.

[-] meliaesc@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Individuals should change. We absolutely do not need the majority of products, and can still keep the modern conveniences without all the excess and waste.

[-] hh93@lemm.ee 21 points 10 months ago

Yeah - everyone is shitting on the top 1% here in Germany until they realize that half the population here makes it into that percentile and suddenly it's the 0,1% that's the problem.

It's all about putting the blame on someone else so you don't have to question if you might be a little bit responsible, too, with your lifestyle...

[-] Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 10 months ago

Half the population of Germany makes it into the global 1%? So 40 million Germans are in the 1%, a group that is 80 million people in the world?

People severely estimate how many Westerners there are. The US alone is like 4 or 5% of the world population. If you're in the west, you're in the top 15% of the world, but not likely the top 1%

[-] AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee -2 points 10 months ago

That's not how math works. Half the population is 50% not 1%

[-] hh93@lemm.ee 15 points 10 months ago

I was talking about the global 1% since that's usually what those kind of stats are aimed at

[-] lugal@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

Are you implying that the climate crisis is a global issue? I thought it's all about recycling

[-] PoisonedPrisonPanda@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 10 months ago

Recycling and liking pictures of polar bears.

[-] lugal@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

Don't forget sharing posts. Sharing is caring

[-] nyahlathotep@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago

They're talking about the top 1% of Germany VS the top 1% of the world. If you reframe your thinking to be about the world instead of just your country, you might find your position as one of the 99% percent changing. I don't make much in the USA, I certainly wouldn't call myself rich, but just being employed, above minimum wage, and single means I'm probably above that threshold.