575
submitted 5 months ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 80 points 5 months ago

Yeah, this I can get behind. Fuck those guys painting Stonehenge, but this? Yeah, go ahead.

[-] k110111@feddit.de 80 points 5 months ago

Controversial opinion: whats the point of stonehenge if there is no humanity? Its not like it fosters some ecosystem or smth for other species, its a historical piece which holds sentimental value to us humans.

If we continue to use oil, we will for sure fuck up humanity. The act was controversial but the message needs to be looked at

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

What's the point of destroying Stonehenge if humanity survives as a cascading result of stopping air travel? Defacing or destroying Stonehenge is not the lynch pin that solves or even moves the needle on climate change.

Worse, if it WORKS it means the next cause that is perhaps not existential is going to come and destroy something else that belongs to humanity. Weirdly, when nation states destroy heritage sites it's considered a type of war crime, but when it comes up for raising awareness for climate change fuck yeah everyone's in!

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No one destroyed Stonehenge. They covered it in ~~wheat-based~~ cornstarch-based dye that washes off in the rain (something England gets a lot of). Calm your tits.

[-] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Last time it was cornstarch.

And the stones are covered in lichen that protect the stone

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

While you are correct (and while I said destroy OR deface), the two different posts about this both contain people advocating for actual destruction for the same reasons.

Please read the other posts and alarm your tits to the reality / tenor of the discussion.

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Okay "alarm your tits" is a genuinely funny turn of phrase.

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

I laughed when I wrote it.

[-] someacnt_@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago
[-] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

What's the point of being alive if you're just gonna die one day?

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

With that attitude we can just about go ahead and kill ourselves, what's the point, right?

My point is that trying to destroy stonge henge and art just to get attention to your cause is doing the cause a disservice. If anything it gives oil producers ammonto say "see how idiotic they are? They don't know what they're doing, climate change isnt real"

Stop punishing all of humanity for what is caused and controlled by a select few. Destroy rich assholes airplanes, that I can get behind. Leave art and historical sites alone.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Yeah but that is the problem. These people keep on trying to destroy art and historical sites just to get the point across.

I know the point, we all know the point and there is NOTHING we can do about it. It's ll in the hands of politicians and wealthy assholes. Destroying beautiful things or historical artifacts isn't doing anything to further the cause, it's not doing a single shit to teach humanity (or better, those politicians that actually can stop climate change). It's the same as those protests that stop traffic. You only piss people off and cause ambulances to not arrive in time at hospitals.

You're doing it wrong.

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 months ago

If we're assuming that humanity will go extinct, then sure there's no point to stonehenge. But then there's also no point to a protest either.

If we're assuming humanity isn't going extinct, then there is a point to preserving stonehenge and there's also a point to having these protests.

Seems like there's a logic fail happening here where there's no point to preserving stone henge for the future but there is still a point to a protest about preserving things for the future.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah but protesting has a lot better odds at improving that future than Stonehenge I'd argud

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

There's zero chance that protesting Stonehenge will improve the future, they're just rocks.

Protesting an oil refinery might have better odds tho.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

Zero change is pretty damn impressive confidence intervals, and oil refineries are much easier to cover things up/rewrite the story at

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago

Even easier to rewrite history when someone is attacking something like Stonehenge. "Just a bunch of idiots that don't really care about the problem, they're just trying to get attention for themselves." And is that all that far from the truth? IT is 100% about getting attention the only thing that's debatable is whether it's attention for the cause or attention for themselves.

The problem isn't that people don't know global warming exists, the problem is they don't care. Sure, being an asshole gets you attention, but it doesn't influence anyone to help with a cause. So whatever their intent, these kinds of actions are just selfish attention seeking.

[-] Sethayy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

So you want them to break into a secure facility and probably get federal charges instead of some rocks?

Cause these rocks are special rocks to you?

load more comments (56 replies)
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
575 points (96.3% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5244 readers
295 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS