this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
1065 points (98.5% liked)
Memes
45622 readers
832 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're right people will never ride a horse instead of their car. (Plus it seems horses would be worse for the environment) But the 2k people who own 50% (?) of world wealth have more say on how the resources are used than the 99.99% of other people. And like them those 2k don't want to ride horses. On the contrary they want to use all the resources for their own benefit. So getting ride of them could allow to implement some sustainable practice they are fighting against.
But it is a joke in the end: Having 2k oligarchs run over by a trolley wont save the planet. What need to be run over is the system that allow 2k people control the fate of all the others through greed.
But thats just not true. Well maybe it's true for a country like china or north korea. But the rest of the world? We could elect people changing the system and there is nothing the 2k people could do. Sure they can influence elections to some degree, but if there was a true will for change? The reason the billionaires have so much power and protection is because a lot of people side with them and the system they support.
But again, the oligarchs ain't the problem. Getting rid of them just changes the ownership of the companies producing the pollution, what we need to do is change the companies and the way to do that is legislation. And that legislation is not supported by the majority of people. I mean look at east germany during the cold war if you don't believe me, not a single billionaire yet still horrible pollution. Billionaires don't cause pollution, people do.
which one of your two options is offering to change the system? Who owns the media that propagandises the masses not to support such change because "cOMmUnISm" and instead be bombarded with "aspirational" content designed (at the cost of trillions of dollars) to make us overconsume? (E: depending on where you live there could of course be more than two options, but I guarantee none of the top contenders are there to change the system, those who do aim to, get slandered by the media long before they get to a position where they're a serious threat to the status quo)
Who is legislating? And who do they actually serve (see above)
Lmfao. It isn't poor people who wage and fund war that leaves more poverty and destruction for them, and billions for those calling the shots. The fact that in one place at one time the people making the money weren't local doesn't change that.
Billionaires are people, people who use their vast power and money to maintain a system that is and always has been rigged in their favour, and that is designed to keep you trapped, along with the rest of us.
The two candidates don’t come from nothing, there is primaries etc. My point is if people wanted change they could have change, but they actually don’t. Look what the French did to their monarchs and aristocrats when the people actually got fed up.
But step one is getting fed up, and most people ain’t fed up. They actually resist change, that’s why they go with the transparent lies the media and politicians feed them. They want minor change, not revolutionary change.