3 ms·

The other difference now is that we're pretty close to wiping out crucial ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest and show no signs of taking climate change as se

• legutierr 4y ago
  Speak for yourself. I take it very seriously myself.
• bamboozled 4y ago
  But still, the word has really been going down the toilet for humans for a long time, famines, wars, plagues, pandemics. It's all been going down the shit shoot for a long time. But then you see a nice sunset, eat a decent meal and feel lucky. If my children get to experience some of those simple pleasures, maybe it's mission accomplished ?
• legutierr 4y ago
  I was downvoted in my other comment, so I think I should explain what I meant. My point was that there is no “we” when we speak of humanity as a broad aggregate this way. There are specific constituencies—for instance, Bolsenaro and his supporters in Brazil—who are blocking the policies that most of us want to implement to stop climate change. It’s not “we” who are the problem, it’s “them”. If you blame humanity in the aggregate you misdirect your energies and misidentify the solution. The thing to do is to apply the appropriate political levers to weaken and oppose the constituencies who prioritize status-quo fossil-fuel energy policies over civilizational stability and the well-being of life on Earth. Blaming all of humanity is the equivalent of giving up and doing nothing, and makes the problem worse.
  • d0100 4y ago
    Leave it to "first world" countries that already killed off all their nature to grandstand on another country with still virgin land...
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]