InternetPerson

Socially or ethically, I think I know what you mean.

I am being pedantic now and say that it can even be bad socially and ethically as a consequence of that or as a consequence of health concerns.

There's a loneliness epidemic and low alcohol consumption rates are a contributor to that

Are they? Sincere question, haven't read a report or something like that on that topic.

Regarding the remaining part, I understand how you see that. Seems logical. However, I would claim that this is more of a problem in societies mindset itself and less one tied to alcohol consumption. If people are raised in a way that they learn how alcohol is necessary, and don't learn other ways, if it's even incorporated in the particular culture of a society, then it's not surprising that those people have a hard time finding new friends.
There are plenty of counter examples, e.g., look at other cultures where alcohol is even forbidden or at least its consumption clearly discouraged. Even in western cultures there are plenty of people who found and prefer other ways. But sure, may of course not be the majority yet.

Regarding a loneliless epidemic, I guess there is also a lot more to it than alcohol consumption alone. For example I have picked up on smartphone usage / social media consumption as related on that. (Which is a very superficial statement now, I haven't read up on that.)

i don’t need to present an alternative to glueing yourself to things….

I've had this kind of talk a lot of times. And when it actually comes to "those alternatives", which critics say activists should pursue instead, one common reaction is silence, as they are lacking ideas about those.
I'll leave you with that.

the jury is not out on that…

As far as I know, it is. If there are new studies, which I don't know of and which come to a clear conclusion, I'd be thankful if you could link them here.

and i don’t really care about your opinions pretending like you’ve read research about how effective gluing yourself to things it….

Well, that's your decision. If you don't believe in facts, then don't. But then it's not surprising if people call you out on that, if you don't provide proof for your position.
If you're interested – which you don't seem to be – I'll happily share the studies, historical examples, reports and surveys I've collected on that topic.

it’s honestly pretty fucking evil of you to promote it.

I didn't promote it. Maybe you can explain what gave you the impression?

nobody should hurt themselves to spread your political message.

I agree that nobody should hurt themselves. Although I can understand if people see themselves driven to such measures out of desperation and/or in order to prevent worse.
Regarding that activist group "Letzte Generation", I couldn't find any reports about injuries due to glueing.

Also I wonder where you get the "your political message" from as I didn't make any statement about my political stance on that.

Compared to other religions, I understand that take, if we neglect stuff like not living up to their own doctrine of, e.g., equal rights between women and men, or the Khalistan movement, which has caused death and abused human rights on several occasions, also by killing civilians.

Still, as most organized religions, it became emergent as a tool of mass control and subjugation. Moral behaviour is not formed by critical thought and self-reflection, but by devotion to some mysterious higher power. Which is and always has been a core issue of problematic behaviour we can so often observe today with religious people. A side-effect is that it has the danger of hindering progress and societal evolution by having a creationism as one of it's core teachings, as far as I know.

A further form of subjugation, hindering freedom of individual human (and harmless) expression, can be found among the Kakkars. For example the "dress-code" with having uncut hair, cotton undergarments etc..

I could go on. So to make it short, no, religions are usually detrimental for the long term constructive development of humanity and Sikhism is no exception.

Sure. But it's still less.

As I've always said, climate protection is economy protection. In the long run especially.

But those fucks in charge are too short-sighted and narrow-minded.

Short term profits are more important than long term financial survival. Or, in case of our climate, even survival at all.

You probably meant 1 / 0.

0 / 1 is 0.

You require more fuel to move compared to fuel consumption while running idle.

a. self-mangling is a good way to discourage sympathy or participation b. disrupting a bunch of random travelers, and actually endangering them [...] not helpful in getting sympathy for the cause... just press coverage... which will be mostly negative. [...]
it's so fucking stupid and counter productive

The jury is still out on that. I've found research and surveys pointing in both directions. The positive and negative effects of such forms of protest are not sufficiently studied yet. Also historically, there are good examples for both.

Therefore, I wouldn't judge yet.

actually endangering them because planes are in the air and need to land

From what I know about that activist group, they always ensure safety. On street blockages, they make room for ambulances, they also inform emergency services.
I haven't looked it up for this case, but I can imagine, that they considered this.
I think, planes usually have enough fuel to land at another airport for such cases. There are emergency protocols for stuff like that anyway. So no one is really endagered here. Just inconvenienced.

c. there are a lot more direct ways to cause disruption, and a lot more sympathetic, less self-harming tactics to get press coverage

What do you have in mind?

e. did i mention it even fucks up the activists physically!!!

Not really though.
Despite that, every member knows the risk. They know what they are doing. They are not stupid and think about such protest actions thoroughly.

Thanks for pointing it out. There is clearly room for a lot of error.

Wtf is going on with you on the other side of the pond there?

I think they meant other countries, which have liberty and democracy engraved to their core.

Also, please keep it civil. There was no need to be so condescending. If you're unhappy with the answer, there are better ways to express this. :)