> This has been especially true for the last century when it comes to the environment This picture is from 99 years ago in Ukraine. It shows the effect of inef

> This has been especially true for the last century when it comes to the environment This picture is from 99 years ago in Ukraine. It shows the effect of inefficient agriculture and the harm done by dogmatic socialism in the most fertile part of Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921%E2%80%931923_famine_in_Ukraine#/media/File:Children_affected_by_famine_in_Berdyansk,_Ukraine_-_1922.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921%E2%80%931923_famine_in_Uk... Millions were starving to death, and Ukraine was not an exception. In most of the world, periods of hunger and starvation was quite normal. This graph shows the percentage of the world population living in extreme poverty, from 1820 to 2015: https://ourworldindata.org/exports/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute-bb127cf20e258cae7b176045ef825838_v17_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/world-population-in-extre... The graph starts at around 90% of the world living in extreme poverty, and is down to less than 10% by 2015. To a large extent, this development was made possible by fossil fuels. > But people dying sucks hard, we’re all fighting fiercely over what is the lesser of two bad outcomes. True, and I was all for lockdowns during the early stages, and later on still happy about them for more personal reasons (I'm obese, and I like working from home). But for some groups, the costs were really high, not just economically. For children, students and many single young people, 1-3 years of isoloation can carry a huge toll socially, psychologically and academically. When I mentioned that to elderly people I know around that time (that were afraid for their lives), they did not show much empathy for those young people who were forced into isolation for the protection of the elderly and obese.