I don’t disagree with you, but this is unrealistic.
But…we don’t have a choice if we are to survive. Continuation with any system like our current system (i.e. exploitation of nature for economic growth) will lead to obvious ecological collapse. Why is certain ecological collapse viewed as the more realistic choice?
This is akin to a person well on their way to a heart attack saying “well, eating healthy is unrealistic, so let’s switch to diet coke and pretend that’s enough”
Sometimes I use the term “psychopathic hoarder class” when referring to this group of people.
I think the message is that South Korean culture and western propaganda is garbage to them. They are saying, “send us garbage, we’ll return the favor in kind”.
This is only a slight exaggeration, all cookies are slowly being replaced by versions of Oreos.
Right!? 30 mins for Age of Sin!? Are they kidding? Is this shrinkflation?
I am become joke, destroyer of Lemmy.
Oh, what about when there’s like 3 or 4 going in the same yard, sounds like that Tibetan Monk chanting with their motor rev going up and down.
I hate them, but we use gravel a lot here to save water and can’t think of a way to keep gravel walkways clear without blowing debris. Brooms, rakes, etc don’t work in this case.
Biden: This isn’t a genocide, so sure
Disclaimer: Voting Biden because Trump will expand the genocide to vulnerable groups here and usher in christian nationalism.
I love schnozzberrum
You’re right, to some insufficient degree, but that’s like reducing your meth habit.
It’s not possible to produce the amount of meat needed to feed our massive population while treating animals humanely.
There are really two options to deal with this:
Most humans in the world become vegan – sounds great but it’s not gonna happen
Reduce our population to sustainable numbers (by eliminating the driver of the population explosion, i.e. fossil energy) – maybe also not gonna happen
Edit: What (do I think) will happen? We’ll continue as we are now as hundreds of billions of animals are tortured until our civilization collapses. This will happen because we were all brought up under a state and told that defending ourselves, our communities, our animals, is wrong and illegal.
These problems are not all the fault of either the producers or consumers, we’re both part of a fucked up cycle within an exploitative economic system and influence each other.
It doesn’t make any more sense for the consumer to wash their hands of all blame and consume without concern and push all the blame on the producer than it does to say it’s all about our “carbon footprint”.
https://alexandrite.app is nice for the desktop.
Still not quite getting my analogy. I’m not merely speaking of calories, or how we decide to dispose of waste.
I haven’t seen any evidence of this.
–> I’ve never seen anyone use this terminology before about “human eutrophication”, I made it up. But if you want more info on this topic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjhb8Nu1Sk
The evidence is the apparent non-sustainable lifestyle that is only possible by the addition of energy not part of the natural short-term energy cycle of the planet. We are making species go extinct and destroying this planet.
By using fossil/nuclear energy we are able to produce enough food to quadruple the population this planet could sustain without that extra energy. All those extra people need more than food, and in producing all the other needs for this expanded population, we damage the ecosystem. The planet is not ours to use, we are
The fact that nuclear is still significantly better than
If you ignore that near everlasting radioactive waste problem we have yet to come with a solution for.
Yes, all of those things make it more likely for human numbers to grow even more, and in the process making more species extinct, and habitats destroyed.
Physics and biology tell us we are living unsustainably. Free energy just makes exploitation of the planet more efficient, wipe out nature even faster with more humans.
If we expect to exist in 100 years, degrowth is the only answer, green energy is a scam.
To my knowledge, electric energy generated by heated water is not producing any kind of effect comparable to nitrogen dumped into a lake or CO2 into the atmosphere. If there’s some source suggesting otherwise, I’d be curious to read it.
You’re not understanding my analogy.
Eutrophication is the addition of too much food for one type of living thing in an environment, allowing it’s population to grow too large for the ecosystem to support. This is exactly what the Green Revolution was for humanity.
I think you’re confusing fossil fuels with fossil fertilizers.
I’m talking about fossil energy in general, all forms of it. Fossil fertilizers are one form of fossil energy.
That’s silly, the greatest song was made in 1999 by Kool Keith.
It’s not about shame, it’s about too much energy added to a system causing imbalance. Large scale use of nuclear or fossil energy does the same thing as adding tons of nitrogen to a lake (eutrophication). It’s temporarily great for the few nitrogen lovers but otherwise destroys the ecosystem.
By using nuclear or fossil energy, humans are causing the equivalent of eutrophication of our own environment.
Won’t that create a bunch of targets all over the country? Then terrorists or enemy states can use simple small bombs to make whole areas uninhabitable for the next millennium.