• bob_wiley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    The response I’ve heard to this, which I tend to agree with, is that even if it’s not completely stopped, maybe some action will mean it won’t be as bad. 120F is bad, maybe instead of throwing up our hands and letting it get to 140F, we can head it off at 130F. Still not good, but better than the alternative. And for each bit we avoid, we get a lot of additional livable area. If we start seeing migrations of people, that extra land is going matter a lot.

    • billytheid@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      You need to see this through the eyes of a psychopath, because those are the ones we’ve put in charge; from their perspective, mass deaths on a global scale mean more resources for them.

      Look at the bunkers they’re building… they’re relishing the notion of genocidal control

      • bob_wiley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mass death means less for everyone. No one praying to the alter of capitalism should want mass death. Fewer consumers means fewer sales, which means lower profits and an economy that contracts…. So their resources go down.

      • dexx4d@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mass death will also slow down global climate change.

        Keep in mind that the “them” that gets more resources includes most of the western world, traditionally.