The few forbid the many from mitigating the damage. They ban building sustainability. The many are then asked to pay the price.
5 Likes
No.
4 Likes
The staff of the NYT can bugger off and commit mass suicide if they like. The rest of us would actually like to solution something.
7 Likes
My reply was on behalf of nonhuman conscious animals everywhere.
2 Likes
I assume this is a thought experiment about Thanos dancing the Carlton, though, because anything that actually wipes out eight billion cosmopolitan generalists is not something they are going to like.
5 Likes
Thank you for that mental image.
1 Like
Yes. Killing off a large group of people who don’t want to die is generally called genocide and it’s disgusting that this is a serious article that they’re printing.
How about we do better by them instead of committing large scale genocide?
6 Likes
I never meant to say we should kill humans off. I was just looking at the damage humans have done to the planet, and concluded that, as a thought experiment, the rest of the biome might be better off without us. I’ve heard that some scientists think we’re in a sixth mass extinction, mostly caused by human activity.
2 Likes
…as that human activity is directed by ignorant bigoted thieving rapists like Trump and other autocrats.
4 Likes
Yeah, going off what @AndyHilmer noted, we’ve lived with varying degrees of connection to nature since human history started… the fact that the major problems we’re having are almost directly related to the capitalist system is pretty telling. We can very much live in a better balance with nature, because for much of our history we absolutely have done so.
8 Likes
I’ll just leave this here
3 Likes