banana-duck-peeled

  • jaeme@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t like how it starts off with the sensationalist “millions of people will disappear”. A lot of this stuff is undergrad environmental science but packaged in an orientalist way to drive clicks.

    Also they will never ever confront capitalism lmao. Don’t want to anger their donors.

    • DayOfDoom [any, any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Millions of people are disappearing right now due to dying but when I make videos lamenting it I get called an antinatalist and then told to kill myself.

      • stewie3128 [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t understand the anti-antinatalist stuff. Having a kid is literally the worst thing you can do to the environment. Shouldn’t we reckon with that?

        • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          ·
          1 year ago

          Having a kid is literally the worst thing you can do to the environment.

          If you’re equating a random child born anywhere in the world with a billionaire’s carbon and pollution imprint, that’s a staggering false equivalency.

              • stewie3128 [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Obviously those things are on a different scale, but there are 3.7 million children born in the US alone every year.

                That means it would take 193 million people -per year - switching to an entirely car-free lifestyle to negate that.

                Or 400 million people per year switching to a plant-based diet.

                Billionaires and the military doing bad stuff doesn’t justify the ecological harm of enlarging the human population.

        • SkeletorJesus [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Reckon with human life itself being bad for the environment? No, I don’t think we should reckon with that, because the only actionable conclusions from that assumption are “we should make being alive less bad for the environment” where you end up on the same page as everybody else or “we should all die.”

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m kind of antinatalist, but where the child is born makes a huge difference. A single USian is practically the same carbon footprint as some whole villages in Africa, SE Asia, and elsewhere

          But also 70% of carbon emissions are from 100ish companies, and “carbon footprint” was coined by ExxonMobil Mobile to deflect from this fact. Or maybe it was Shell.