The memes of the climate

1682 readers

605 users here now

The climate of the memes of the climate!

Planet is on fire!

mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.

rules:

no slurs, be polite
don't give an excuse to pollute
no climate denial
and of course: no racism, no homophobia, no antisemitism, no islamophobia, no transphobia

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

935

The necessary technologies (feddit.de)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

316 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What if I told you, on the world stage, "rich person" encompasses most Americans.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

What if i told you with renewable energy, public transit mobility, an end to the 9to5 and consume excess hamster wheel, proper recycling and sustainable products everyone could life a good life, many americans even a better life?

The world has enough ressources to sustain a larger human population and give everyone the means to a decent life. It is solely in the way things are done right now, in particular the obscenely rich, that are unsustainable.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 months ago

A decommodification of housing would be amazing as well.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

sustain a larger human population

No, we are way over budget on people as it is. Sustain means 'indefinitely under current conditions'.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Can you point me to a dictionary that specifies, that it can only refer to the current conditions?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sustain

It suggest as meanings to maintain, to provide, to encourage... In the meaning of provide and maintain there is no limit to current conditions.

I have laid out the conditions under which the world can sustain such a human population. I find it linguistically wrong to limit it in such a way, that only the current situation is permissable. This is directly contradictorary to any use in relation to future like planning.

E.g. "we plan the building to sustain a 6.5 earthquake" would be wrong under your criteria, as neither the building, nor the earthquake exist at the point of that statement..

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I was thinking more in terms of climatic conditions.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

For context:

Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam