3 ms·
Eh. This all seems very backwards to me. It seems to be a human tendency to want to oversimplify problems. It seems very wrong-headed to me to concentrate on o
by dale_glass 2y ago
Eh. This all seems very backwards to me.
It seems to be a human tendency to want to oversimplify problems. It seems very wrong-headed to me to concentrate on one particular machine than for instance on that one influential guy had no appreciation for the jungle, plus whatever politics surrounded that, plus the desires/needs/etc of the surrounding communities, investors, etc.
Because yeah, the right machine sure helps get wrong things done faster, but it's not like we've ever lacked means to be inventive when we really want to, or just sheer pigheadedness to do it even if it was hard. If it's not a bulldozer it might be flamethrowers, defoliants, repurposed tanks, chainsaws, etc.
If enough people (or a few rich enough people) want a jungle gone, then they'll probably get that done sooner or later with whatever means they can. It's this bigger and more complex issue we should be looking into solving.
- hot_gril 2y agoI just took it as poetic, not that bulldozers are actually a problem. Innocent-looking machine can be used for grotesque things, which is creepier in a way than regular weapons. That's about it. Idk if that's what the author intended.