6 ms·
I think we should ban pets. The planet is dying.
by adnzzzzZ 6y ago
I think we should ban pets. The planet is dying.
- EGreg 6y agoNorth Korea banned dogs https://dnews.com/life/north-korea-s-kim-and-and-his-dog-ban/article_722ffd1a-af37-5824-96f9-2445913c9b22.html https://dnews.com/life/north-korea-s-kim-and-and-his-dog-ban...
- excalibur 6y agoAnd/or ate them all
- selimthegrim 6y agoRelevant Bloodsport clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDdmsnCe9_U&t=32s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDdmsnCe9_U&t=32s
- selimthegrim 6y agoAnd apparently there is an actual dish in Tianjin called ‘ignored by the dog buns’ named after an inventor with a canine last name. Who knew.
- HideousKojima 6y agoI present this post as reason #5,782 why policies to combat climate change are horribly unpopular politically.
- adnzzzzZ 6y agoYou could make it popular if you package it up with a Bitcoin banning proposal. Two birds with one stone.
- majormajor 6y agoThe morality-based "don't create technology to fight climate change since it would allow us to continue current behaviors" position is definitely one of the more infuriating ones. The damage is the big problem here, not the behavioral causes.
- viro 6y agoThat post has to be a case of Poe's law right... for the love of god please.
- batch12 6y agoWhile we're being extreme, banning humans would be a more straightforward solution.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoMore popular, too, since many people like their pets more than they like other people.
- elliotec 6y agoBy that logic, we should ban humans who have a far more significant impact on the death of the planet.
- gruez 6y agoit really goes well with all the "bitcoin consumes as much energy as x" articles that we see on hn.
- jtdev 6y agoAre you Bill Gates?
- SilverRed 6y agoHas Bill Gates ever advocated for banning pets or is this another nutcase conspiracy?
- DC1350 6y agoBill Gates’ book just says make clean energy, electrify everything possible, and do carbon capture for everything else. The whole Bill Gates strategy is based on the idea that climate austerity is never going to happen. Although he did also say “geoengineering is the only known way that we could hope to lower the earth’s temperature within years or even decades without crippling the economy.”, which is a bit concerning
- qbasic_forever 6y agoYou could make the same argument for peopling having houseplants.
- SilverRed 6y agoWhats wrong with house plants?
- qbasic_forever 6y agoReal problem: people growing invasive species like bamboo that escape and over time destroy local plant ecosystems (see all the kudzu in the south of America as another example). Silly problem just to show how silly the OP's argument is: putting a plant indoors now means it costs carbon to keep it living--I have to water it, but that water doesn't come for free and depends on a vast pipeline of industrialization to extract water, pump it to my home, and then build containers for me to hold the water and drip it on my indoor plants. It would be better to just cut that chain entirely and let plants get water from rain directly... by not being indoor houseplants.
- SilverRed 6y agoSo there is no real issue with houseplants that couldn't be made for literally anything people do or own. Even if we banned all house plants, I doubt it would have any improvement on the environment. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes things even worse as people use synthetic decorations to replace their house plants. Tbh I'm kind of sick of every thread about the environment being filled with comments about completely insignificant things while the obvious and massive improvements are sitting in front of our faces. If most countries implemented a carbon tax and did literally nothing else, it would be a monumental improvement. When tested in Australia, it was economically and environmentally a massive success. It was just destroyed politically by newscorp.
- coding123 6y agoThis should be upvoted because the replies and replies to replies are among the funniest I've seen in a while.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- hinkley 6y agoThis is suicidally myopic. Zoos don't exist to conserve endangered animals. They exist to create an emotional connection between endangered animals and humans. Which someone else can use to provoke you to act on your stated but never demonstrated belief in protecting the natural world. Taking humans out of nature is why we are so fucked up now. Getting rid of pets would put many people into the completely sterile category. Why do I need nature? What's it ever done for me? Nothing.
- emiliobumachar 6y agoAs someone else mentioned, many people substitute pets for children to some extent, and that's gotta be greener because children eventually grow up, take up driving and require separate houses.