On Friday, the globe hit 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees) above pre-industrial levels for the first time in recorded history

  • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Being vegan is the most impactful change that individuals can make.

    But we won’t change.

    It is totally hopeless.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being vegan is the most impactful change that individuals can make.

      being vegan has no impact at all.

    • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Hoping everyone collectively changes their behaviour isn’t a solution unfortunately.

      We have all the tools and technology to make a huge dent in this problem right now if not outright solve it. The most impactful thing you can do is spread awareness and do what you can to make this a voting issue if you live in a democracy. It could even be as simple is making it a non negotiable for how you choose to vote.

      Lack of climate action needs to be a death sentence for the careers of the political class or it will become a death sentence for the the rest of us.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not having children is the most impactful individual change one can make, well over going vegan.

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

        Becoming a vegan anti-natalist is the most impact a person can make.

        I am uncertain of the numbers regarding both individually. You might be right.

        Personally, I think both are important.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, no, wandering off into the woods is the biggest personal offset you can make.

          And there’s a whole range between that and being a vegan anti-natalist, and once you get into calculating your impact on others the whole equation changes

          This isn’t a problem that can be solved personally, it doesn’t make sense to look at it like that

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            wandering off into the woods is the biggest personal offset you can make.

            what about destroying fossil fuel extraction or transportation projects?

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well that’s not really personal anymore.

              Like say you blow up an oil rig or tanker… Congrats, you just made huge a carbon footprint.

              Now say oil equipment gains a habit of being sabotaged, consistently. If it’s one person, It’s a problem for law enforcement. If it’s a consistent thing, fossil fuels have just become more expensive to produce statistically

              Or, you know, we could pass a tax or regulate them properly

              Regardless, my point is that climate change is a systematic problem, thinking of it in terms of individual action is already flawed

        • F_Haxhausen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No it is not. Eugenics is an attempt to improve the genetic quality of a human population.

          We are talking about an attempt to stop climate change. We are not trying to “improve” the genetics of human population.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            We are talking about an attempt to stop climate change

            those are the trappings, but the method is bare eugenics

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

              No it is not. Eugenics is a pseudo-science about improvement of genetics. Period.

              Trying to avoid climate catastrophe is not about improving genetics.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Trying to avoid climate catastrophe is not about improving genetics.

                if the method by which you try to avoid it is eugenicist, then it is.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Eugenics is a pseudo-science about improvement of genetics. Period

                no, it’s not, even the wikipedia article we both love disputes this claim plainly.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            that’s a narrow definition that doesn’t really encompass all the ways in which eugenics has been practiced. frequently, as i have done here, it is used synonymously with genocide. stop practicing genocide.

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

              Braindead take. We don’t need more children to be born into a world of suffering.

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

              No. Genocide is murdering people. Genocide is violence against people. Forcing people, against their will to stop existing.

              Asking people to reproduce less is asking people (not forcing them) to exercise their own will.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                genocide is also propaganda that encourages one segment of the population to cease reproduction.

          • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Eugenics sounds good at first, but human greed and corruption makes it an incredibly dangerous tool that should probably not be in the hands of anyone

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            i suggest we figure out a way to maintain the habitability of the planet without eugenics.

            • dangblingus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Right, but from a “carbon footprint” perspective, making new humans is the worst thing a human could do for their footprint. What we need to get away from is the argument that our individual carbon footprints are too high. I mean, they are, but the ruling class is a lot more egregious.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What makes you think major nations will forego their cheapest source of energy if other nations are using it?

    • sirdorius@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And the easiest. But even if all animal products were eliminated worldwide tomorrow, it would probably still not be enough for the emissions target. So individual changes do not make a dent in the problem.