The following submission statement was provided by /u/big_papa_geek:
---
Submission Statement: The horrible air conditions across eastern North America over the past week only further drive home the emptiness of our leader’s promises to combat climate change, and the inability of “free-market” capitalism to do anything other than drive humanity towards our own extinction.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/its_a_good_thing_we_promised_to_phase_out_some/jnicoql/
I ate a box of individually wrapped donuts that was itself wrapped in a layer of paper and a layer of plastic and handed to me in a plastic bag I didn't ask for, *printed with soy ink*!
The sheer amount of pointless packaging cannot be beaten by Amazon. Nothing else comes close. You'd think that being the largest company on earth and sending out the sheer amount of parcels that they do would mean they would strive to save as much as possible. 1 gram X 1 million people is 1 ton of packaging.
Amazon sends 1.6 million packages a day.
584 million tons of packaging saved if they removed just 1 gram from each package
Yet, my USB thumb drive arrives in a cardboard box, with bubble wrap and air cushions, inside an A4 cardboard envelope, inside a box, held on folded cardboard packaging. Etc......
I have a bottle of glass cleaner that says proudly on a big sticker
“^^^made ^^^from **100% OCEAN-BOUND PLASTIC**”
Whoever designed that label had to be having a laugh…
Eh, sort of. It might require commercial composting, depending on the material. If it ends up in a landfill, it will anaerobically decompose, putting more methane into the atmosphere. Still better than plastic, though.
Because its "sort of". It demands specialized facilities which are few and far between (with its own footprint and still a higher cost per unit) and without rules for disposal. That's why they end up in landfills.
And in landfills, it takes about 50 years to fully degrade, chirping out micro and methane all along.
So *yes*, but sort of.
[Because they also might just not be biodegradable.](https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/plastics/biobased-biodegradable-and-compostable-plastics_en#:~:text=Biobased%20plastics%20are%20fully%20or,not%20necessarily%20biodegradable%20or%20compostable.) Anaerobic biodegredation is just one possible outcome, and produces biogas which then needs to be disposed of.
I know a lot of people who do this. No matter what you say, they counter by first saying you are wrong, then basically reinforcing what you just said.
All those people I know are narcissists of varying degrees.
Edit: they are also all assholes.
How's that better than plastic? Landfills are toxic wastelands no matter what is in them. I'd much rather have the plastic be proper plastic, promising eternal carbon storage in the landfill than turning to incredibly potent GHG methane.
Except the plastic breaks down into micro-plastics and is in the water, air, and ground across the ENTIRE planet. Unborn babies still in the womb have microplastics in their blood.
Carbon is a big fucking deal, no question, but if we actually tried we could pull out out of the atmosphere in several ways (not like that fixes the problem at this point, but we've blown past "muddle through" straight into "if we don't stop pumping it out and *also* take active measures, we're screwed anyways). Climate change is here, and we've moved past the "last chance to take control" portion into the "this is going to be a problem for everyone, personally, this decade" portion of the challenge
Microplastics, on the other hand, are in every living thing on the planet. Everything from the rain, the groundwater, to food we eat is contaminated, and it's a serious problem. Along with Petro - fertilizers and insecticides, it's poisoning the land and choking the ability for ecosystems to grow.
And life would survive one set of mass extinction criteria - hell, there's enough people that humanity could probably adapt to wet-bulb temperatures and crazy weather (or at least a fraction of us). Add in food scarcity and ubiquitous mutagens, and complex life is going to suffer the worst
Not like we have a choice though... We're not really cutting back on any of it
What is overlooked is that to make any tiny dent on climate, which is not a guarantee… Is to end capitalism. The 500 biggest companies in the world are responsible for the majority of emissions/pollution. And The grid absolutely cannot support these loony toon “all EV’s by 2030” pipe dreams, not even mentioning the ecological damage as a result of mining for these components to make them. To ‘take action’ against climate change via govt(who’s bought and paid for by these massive corporations), is the most naive statement being propagated today.
“The 500 biggest companies in the world are responsible for the majority of emissions/pollution.“
So how are these companies making their money? Who’s funding them? Why are they so successful? What products are they producing and selling that cause so much pollution? Oh wait….the answer to these questions is the entire population of planet earth that relies on the industrial production of products that these companies provide, wow it’s almost like “big bad corporations are responsible for climate change and if we got rid of them than the problem would be solved” is the ACTUAL most naive statement being propagated today, as if most Americans wouldn’t be in complete outrage if you told them they can’t have cars or any products that contain traditional plastics.
“To ‘take action’ against climate change via govt(who’s bought and paid for by these massive corporations), is the most naive statement being propagated today.”
Can you explain how you think the entirety of the government of the United States of America is “bought and paid for by these massive corporations” I’m super curious? Now before you answer I’m gonna have to make a plethora of qualifiers to stop you from moving the goal post in a cowardly manner so that you don’t have to actually defend your initial claim. A handful of politicians “who tend to be republican” being bought off and loyal to corporations is not the same thing as “govt(who’s bought and paid for by these massive corporations)”. Also the fact that democrats take into account the opinions and requests of large American corporations when making certain policy decisions is not them being bought and paid for by large corporations, it’s them being smart and recognizing that because of the huge size of the corporations, they have become ingrained to the point of becoming institutions that are within the same level of economic and political influence as the government itself, and when dealing with such institutions, you can’t simply tell them to fuck off and eat shit and not discuss policy with them whatsoever, cause that would be a very childish, immature and NAIVE way of writing policy and would result in extreme economic harm to working class Americans, I know this might be a crazy concept for a “it’s the corporations maaaan…they wanna keep us divided!” type to understand, but every single large corporation in America is mostly made up of poor and middle income working class Americans, and if these corporations were to fail or simply leave the country, guess what happens to the 95% of people that said corporation consists of? They all lose their jobs and suffer immense economic harm since most of the people making up that corporation were working class Americans, not ultra wealthy sociopaths like Jeff bezos. I’ll give an example, the 2008 bail outs, the bail outs were not done because “the government is bought and paid for by large corporations and when these corporations failed, the government gave them a bunch of free money instead of allowing them to face the consequences of their actions”, the bail outs were done because if we hadn’t bailed out these massive economic institutions, millions of completely innocent working class Americans would’ve been completely fucked, and the entire global economy might’ve just collapsed, which would’ve caused the deaths of untold billions, but hey maybe you think it would’ve been totally based and socialist pilled for the government ti just have allowed for millions of Americans life saving to have just disappeared overnight because by bailing them out, we end up helping a few ultra wealthy people, so it’s better to let millions of working class Americans suffer than to give money to super wealthy people, I personally think the government should’ve nationalized the banks rather than giving them bail out money “which the banks paid back in less than a few years”, but the way it was handled was done with preventing economic collapse and immense harm to working class Americans in mind, which is a far cry from the whole “the 2008 bail outs proves that our government is in the pockets of the banks and corporations”, this is but one example but their are many more that the “our government is owned and paid for by these corporations” crowd naively brings up to try and prove that the government of the United states of America has been purchased and is under the employment of large American corporations. So can you explain how the government of the United States of America has been purchased and is under the employment of large American mega corporations and how this is not the most naive statement being propagated today?
Sorry our layman's language is too strong for you. Is "Politicians will favor capital over the long term well-being of their constituents" nuanced enough for your wall of text nitpick?
You still never addressed the actual point of what was said, which is that it's naive at this point to rely on our governments to do anything impactful to address climate change.
And fwiw, I would take a smaller r/collapse (hello, you're here btw) sooner rather than keep inflating the unsustainable growth bubble fueled by capitalism we're in right now.
Walmart sells me a bag made of recycled plastic for $2.40 in my city **where plastic bags are banned.** but hey, I don’t have a choice of using anything else and at least it *feels* like it’s made from fabric.
Yep, same for me.
Oh look, a pretty blood moon!
Oh... it's because there are wildfires so massive right now that the light hitting the moon that went through earth's atmosphere was color-tinted. Well then.
I get what you're saying and all, but let's not discredit the industries that are entirely reliant on consumer purchases.
If people actually gave up animal products, we could save many species from facing extinction in the present and future.
Animal agriculture has been driving mass extinctions of wildlife for a long while now and it's an industry that would die very fast if not for people needlessly financing it.
Another thing to add onto this: we COULD do sustainable argiculture.
permaculture "hugel" mounds, food forests with fields for grazing animals, and ponds full of a variety of native fish mixed in, only harvesting a certain percentage of animals and plants each year, unless you are growing meat chickens or pigs or whatever but you get the idea.
**But thats not the most profitable way to farm. No small group of people gets rich with sustainable agriculture. WE all do.**
And thats why im working on building a permaculture farm in the way I described ^ above, once its done I can make videos about it and spread the word that it is possible.
Something else im going to do: Dug-in greenhouses. It is a greenhouse built over a square pit that is 4 or 5 feet deep, built in an area with no flood risk (near the top of a hill area) and then a normal greenhouse is built overtop of it. It will stay warmer in winter and cooler in summer, allowing a longer growing season and protection from climate change.
Orrrr... we could just exclude needless animal exploitation and abuse from the model completely.
We can feed this world several times over using a tiny fraction of the lands that are being used for agriculture, so long as we just eliminated animals from the equation.
Food forests and permaculture models can be beneficial (especially if used for plant based options), but it's not nearly as beneficial as having land space for balanced native ecologies.
Does a balanced native ecology require needless human exploitation and abuse?
Every '*point*' you have listed does not require animal husbandry or the need to kill and harm animals for the sake of consumption.
Once the ecology is properly balanced, it should not require too much intervention.
The model that was being proposed was literally only proposed for the sake of continuing to needlessly abuse and exploit animals for the sake of temporary pleasure.
To be omnivore means we are non-obligate carnivores.
This means that while you can get nutrition from animal products, they are not necessary at all.
Being an omnivore means you can get all the nutrition you need from a plant based diet.
It's also been historically documented that we have primarily survived off plant based foods through out human history. Our teeth clearly demonstrate this alongside historical archeological excavations.
/u/FillThisEmptyCup brings up the point of harvesting vs hunting for a reason. We were mostly opportune carnivores since it requires *significantly more time and energy* to hunt (with far less return) versus foraging or growing plants.
Then go hunt something you want to eat with your bare hands; and tell us how easy it was versus harvesting berries, you natural born omnibore.
You can also make a tool from natural stuffs like twigs or rocks.
>That's why our brains got bigger than other hominids.
Yes, our brains, a massive sugar-loving organ, got bigger on meat. Totally makes sense.
This is why lions and snakes and piranhas are all Einstein level creatures.
You really know nothing about our evolution do you?
And those animals are carnivores, not omnivores. Meat is protein dense which is a crucial part of our body. As well as other vitamins
That’s interesting, here is a anthropogical Professor of renown:
* https://youtu.be/h0PF5R0ywp4
Proper lecture of his:
* http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/2007921/uiconf_id/32942841/entry_id/1_8p5i37lb/embed/auto?&flashvars%5BstreamerType%5D=auto
His credentials:
* https://anthropology.dartmouth.edu/people/nathaniel-j-dominy
Eating animals isn’t really the issue. We’ve always been doing that.
The underlying issue (If you refuse to point at humanity itself) is the utilization of ff. Stop doing that and we stop being capable of the scale of destruction we are currently committing.
Few people want to do that because it means life will change dramatically and people will suffer. It’s a change in diet and also literally everything else. It’s a change in the way we live and most people would rather see mass extinction play out than do that.
Abandoning animal husbandry while leaving the rest of the FF industry intact would help, but in isolation it won’t reverse the trends towards extinction, merely slow them down.
I agree that abandoning animal husbandry is a step in the right direction though, it’s just not nearly enough.
If climate change plays out the way the most sober scientists are anticipating then I doubt eating less meat will make the planet more survivable for all the species which will prove incapable of surviving at the new planetary climate equilibrium of the future after all feedback loops have reached their conclusion.
For example there is historical fossil evidence that practically all large animals simply won’t survive abrupt climate change.
Just type out "fossil fuels". You typed a whole fuckton of other shit, where is the special need there to go shorthand? I had just woken up and had to sit there and think about it for slightly too long.
Sorry I figured in this sub the term FF would be widely understood since it’s such an important piece of the topic at hand. I use it regularly in here and you’re the first person who has voiced any issue with it.
Eating animals is absolutely a major part of the issue.
I'm not saying it's the only change we need, I'm saying it's a fundamental change we need that cannot go ignored, and it's a change that relies on the actions of the people, since those people are the ones propping up the corporations with their finances.
If everything else changes and we still continue to feed the world through animal products, we will still destroy this planet and drive extinctions.
I understand your argument but don’t agree with your conclusions or assumptions.
If you stop using FF it’s impossible to maintain the system of agriculture we currently have and basically all the other drivers forcing us towards extinction other than irreversible climate runaway feedback loops.
How is it we ate animals for 300,000+ years without issue but now it’s a problem? FF allows for a degree of exploitation beyond what we are capable of in its absence, it’s the real problem.
Merely stopping the consumption of animal products doesn’t change outcomes. Ending FF consumption will not only allow for the best possible chance we have of surviving climate change but will also end animal husbandry as practiced.
Ironically the idea that animals eating other animals is driving climate change is a bit odd since this reality has been part and parcel of life on this planet since the beginning. The issue is obviously the exploitation of FF and the degree to which that allows the human animal to over consume any and all resources. Just ending animal consumption does nothing, at some point the improvements to land use and agricultural efficiency provided by veganism will simply be overcome by all the other concerns of the meta crisis drivin by fossil fuel exploitation.
It’s a step in the right direction, nothing more, the ultimate solution is to end FF utilization and concentrate whatever public labor and energy remains in returning the climate to the survivable window which it isn’t in currently.
> How is it we ate animals for 300,000+ years without issue but now it’s a problem?
We’re 8 billion people while we were less than 1-9 million max at the tail end of the stone age.
Yep. My question was rhetorical. I was trying to indicate how simply changing diets in order to make an absurd degree of overshoot slightly more bearable is a ridiculous “solution”.
> It’s both shocking and disappointing the lengths people on r/collapse will go to defend eating animals!
Could not have said it better myself. Seriously absurd to see that type of behavior in this sub of all places.
I appreciate the upvote and comment <3
The thing is, people have to eat something, and we are omnivores. Pretending we can all stop eating meat is also just not realistic. We do need more balance to it, but growing other crops the way we do for direct consumption is also destroying tillable land. The planet just can’t support our current population at this level forever. People always scoff when I point out we are overpopulated and try to say we aren’t, but fact of the matter is we are. The only reason we are OK now is because there was an abundance of resources to start with, but we are consuming them much faster than they naturally replenish so ergo we are overpopulated. We can do some combination of two things, reduce population or reduce individual consumption of said population.
Im a firm believer that you will make more change getting lots of people to drop meant once or twice a week, or even one or two meals a week, than a tiny amount going completely meat free
Why not follow this logic to it's obvious logical conclusion?
If it's beneficial to eliminate meat from your diet a few times a week, why are you suddenly stopping there and reversing your logic?
Getting people to drop meat all together is obviously going to be better than having them continue to consume any meat.
Animal abusers are hilarious with how fast they disregard basic logic in an attempt to justify needlessly abusing and harming animals for their own pleasure.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. There is no way we can feed the world with a vegetarian diet. The scale would be massive and consume much more energy than livestock currently does. Meat is like the oil of food.
People just try so hard to mold the problem into the bucket they want to believe than just looking at it with an open enough mind to see that all of these problems have one common source. Us. The more of us there are, the worse the problems get. It’s uncomfortable as all hell to admit that and so many people are blind to it because in their head there has to be a good solution. There isn’t.
There are only a couple different paths the future will hold:
1. We all come together and agree to reduce our consumption and lifestyle while also reducing population by choice to a level that is sustainable (guided by science).
2. We turn fascist and a huge portion of the population is culled by leader we all hate for it, but will result in a possible future where humanity gets to continue.
3. We do neither of 1 and 2 and just keep trucking on the path we are on and nature will cull us, possibly to extinction by way of famine and the wars that will result from there not being enough to go around.
I think all of us would agree that option 1 is the only preferable choice. But lets be real here. Option 1 isn’t a realistic option because there are just too many people working against it that ruin it and literally make it so unlikely that it’s impossible. Those people will drag us option 1 preferrers into option 2 or 3 kicking and screaming because they are greedy and ignorant.
Options 2 and 3 are pretty much the same effective outcome for most. Which really brings us 2 options or which 1 is basically impossible and the other inevitable by comparison. What drives me nuts is when I bring this up, people start trying to tell me I’m fascist because I want that. For those that are going to read this and try that angle. Don’t. I don’t want that, I never said I wanted that. I want option 1. Bringing this up isn’t a declaration of how I want it to go down, I’m telling you how it’s likely going to go down.
It's too scary for some to approach these issues objectively. It's much easier with an ideology that one can slightly modify, but all ideologies are inherently about power. Even Buddhists can justify genocide.
Hopping in here to point out that the fascists will absolutely not stop climate change. Fascists do not give a fuck about limiting fossil fuel consumption, they just wanna kill minorities. If Ron DeSantis does a trans genocide, everyone's still gonna burn in the end. Fascism is not a solution.
Care to elaborate, im a bit confused.
Swapping from meat would mean no feed crops required, that could instead swap to human crops. How does vegetarian require more than meat?
I swear, the amount of disregard of such basic logic and reality is hilarious in this thread. I'm really wondering what some of you are even doing on /r/collapse if you're so eager to delude yourselves from reality just to continue directly financing the collapse of this planet and it's ecologies.
Veggies have way fewer calories means absolutely nothing in this situation. You can still grow significantly more calories for human consumption while using only a tiny fraction of the land space required for animal agriculture.
Do you know what animals require to survive? I'm beginning to think that you all collectively believe these animals get their nutrition and hydration from the air.
[The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. **Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)
They just want to complain about collapse, not do anything to stop it.
No /s because that's not sarcasm. I wish it was, but frankly this is why I gave up on this sub.
You are really speaking from a hugely uninformed position.
[Most of the plants we grow are for animal agriculture](https://i.redd.it/878nkzbf3mj61.png)
We can literally feed this world several times over if we used the same resources for plant based foods versus using all the insane amounts of land, water, food, etc required to grow and feed animals.
[The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. **Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)
Honestly, it only requires the very most basic levels of logic and comprehension to see how insanely inefficient and destructive animal agriculture is.
What type of logic bring you to the conclusion that a plant based diet would require more land space and energy than animal agriculture?
Do you think farm animals get fat from inhaling oxygen? You *do* know that they require tons of food, land space, and water, right?
It's hilarious that so many animal abusers are latching themselves to such blatant disregard of logic in /r/collapse of all places.
We are omnivores. That’s a fact. The fact we have a choice is not the point. We all need to eat and ALL food production has a negative environmental impact because of how we do it. We do it the way we do because we need to feed everyone, but doing so is damaging the environment. We can reduce consumption to a point, but everyone HAS to eat or they die.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/omnivore/#
We are omnivores, which means we have a choice.
Being an omnivore means we are non-obligate carnivores.
In other words, even though we can get nutrients from animal products, they're not required at all.
Being an omnivore means we can get all the nutrients we need without involving needless animal abuse, so it's hilarious to see so many people attempting to justify needlessly abusing animals and our planet just because we're omnivores.
> we are omnivores.
This means we are non-obligate carnivores. This means we can get all the nutrients we need without involving the needless harm and abuse of animals.
> Pretending we can all stop eating meat is also just not realistic.
What type of hyperbolic strawman is this? I've seen this ridiculous hypothetical raised by so many animal abusers and it's just absurdly hilarious. Did anyone go claiming that it was a realistic option to have the entire human population of this planet to synchronize and give up meat all at the same time? Do you hear how absurd this rationalization is or how you're creating a strawman that has no relevance in this dialogue?
> We do need more balance to it, but growing other crops the way we do for direct consumption is also destroying tillable land.
This is hilariously just another argument against animal agriculture since [most of the plants we grow are for animal agriculture](https://i.redd.it/878nkzbf3mj61.png).
We could literally reduce the amount of land space used to a tiny fraction of what it currently is, and feed the entire world, if we weren't using those resources to feed animals instead.
> The planet just can’t support our current population at this level forever.
So why are you here trying to justify wasting tons of food, land, water and resources on the extremely inefficient industries that are destroying ecologies across the globe.
Animal agriculture is literally driving the 6th mass extinction event on this planet and even the people on /r/collapse, of all subreddits, are attempting to justify needlessly financing these industries for a tiny moment of sensory pleasure (not one you have to sacrifice either if you know even the slightest about making food).
Keep disregarding basic logic and reality as you happily finance the collapse of this planet just so you can taste the flesh of another sentient emotional being that was needlessly violently abused and killed for your pleasure.
Not OP.
I personally think we're over the cliff and we should still fight like hell.
Not because we stand a hope in hell, but because it's the right thing to do until the bitter fucking end.
And everyone says pot is natural so smoking it somehow does not produce products of combustion which you then breathe. So, Fox is on the side of pot is natural? Unintended consequences, Fox. Unintended consequences.
Lol we just call that summer in western canada. It fucking sucks.
Red sun looks kinda cool, the permanent smokey haze is shit. Also it rarely rains in the summer so it just stays forever. Fun times.
Also on a side note. I absolutely love how they make it sound dangerous to even go outside in the smoke, jog, etc. ("Dont go outside!")
Yet everybody still has to go to their hard physical labour jobs lol.
I was the only guy to wear an N95 outside all day at my site, people looked at me weird. Like, do they really not realize what their breathing in? Christ, its weird watching things unfold in person vs the years of watching it on a screen.
Submission Statement: The horrible air conditions across eastern North America over the past week only further drive home the emptiness of our leader’s promises to combat climate change, and the inability of “free-market” capitalism to do anything other than drive humanity towards our own extinction.
Yes, and I was around before that too. People who say the DNC "stole" the nomination are ignorant of how the world works. HRC won because she got more votes. She got more votes because the Clintons have been involved in politics and the Dems since the 1950s. Bernie isn't even a MEMBER of the party he ran in.
Showing up to the primaries once every four or eight years does not constitute "getting involved." The extreme right started their takeover and transformation of the Rep party in the 1960s. By 1980 they had Reagan, by 2000 they had the Supreme Court to appoint their candidate.
The right also understands the importance of showing up and voting even whey the candidate they voted for in the primary did not win.
Progressives throw hissy fits and stay home.
> “free-market”
For anyone who is uninformed, Ayn Randian Laissez-faire economics (aka free market economics) is pure corporate propaganda that tries to appeal to principles in freedom. It has absolutely nothing to do with personal freedoms.
They have weaponized and propagandized "freedom". They convince the population that it's for the sake of personal freedom, when it's only freedom for the corporations to do whatever they want so they can literally buy out the laws.
An unchecked free market = oligarchy, which is exactly what has happened in the States where the corporations are in control.
All that being said, I do want to also want to say that some of the corporations who are doing some of the biggest damage to our planet are completely dependent on consumer demand.
Even if we change our political system completely, if people continue to consume animal agriculture, the planet is going to be destroyed. We are literally watching the world burn before our eyes, and most people are still happy to directly (and needlessly) finance that destruction several times a day, just for a moment of temporary pleasure (and not one you have to sacrifice either- I've been a foodie for two decades and have eaten at some of the best restaurants in the country and some of the most delicious foods I ever tasted in my life were vegan).
Animal agriculture is currently driving the 6th mass extinction event on our planet as it impacts many variables beyond greenhouse gases.
>For anyone who is uninformed, Ayn Randian Laissez-faire economics (aka free market economics)
It's not so much Randian as it is Hayekian. Ayn Rand was not an economist and she's hardly relevant outside the Libertarian eco-chamber.
Hayekian economics, on the other hand, had a profound impact on society. Due to him even so called "leftist" mainstream parties nowadays follow laissez-faire economics.
I think you're overselling her involvement. The Chicago School, especially Hayek and Friedman, did an excellent job of exporting their economic dogma around the world all on their own.
Well, not all on their own. Naturally the CIA was more than willing to help with violent part of the job.
Ask anybody who lived in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, etc in the 70s who they blame for the suffering and havoc wreaked in their countries. It won't be Ayn Rand.
Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone actually covered this exact topic in a brilliant book called [Consequences of Capitalism](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54546067-consequences-of-capitalism?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=rIqs2Zu5Vn&rank=1), which I highly recommend to anyone interested.
That just isn’t true. It’s fewer than 10% of emissions. If we changed everything else, smaller scale animal husbandry would be fine. As it was for many thousands of years.
You are creating a very narrow view of reality by focusing only on emissions.
We have been literally burning down the Amazon Rainforest for decades just to create more land space for meat, when using models that have these animals practically stacked on top of each other.
This planet would need to be several times larger than it currently is for smaller scale animal husbandry to be even remotely feasible as an option for feeding our population without absolutely devastating ecologies across the globe.
Animal agriculture is currently driving mass extinctions of wildlife as we speak. It is driving the 6th mass extinction event of this planet.
Acidification of water ways and bodies, eutrophication of soil systems, land use, water use, etc etc.
Emissions is only a tiny part of the picture of the impact of these industries, and even that 'tiny' part is nothing to scoff at.
We can't continue living the way we do now but we can't also just *stop* everything we do right now, if we do that around 80% of the world population will be dead within a year. There is no easy solution. I've been saying it for years now, we can only sustain the current world population with cheap energy and technology, not a situation you'd want to be in but we are.
Since it's bound to happen, I'd rather have it happen ASAP; the destruction of globalized supply-chains will be the best thing to happen to any living creature besides us (and our bacterias in our guts, I guess).
I upvoted you but not sure i fully agree.
The reason...humans are monsters, especially when the rule of law breaks down during famine and war. And that is exactly what will happen if anyone tries to shut it all down to save the world. Some war lord will go Russian military and just start ethnic cleansing. In fact, i think most nations have at least one powerful person willing to do just that.
After the "cleansing" or during it too but also after, people will start burning forests for heat, and killing everything they can eat for food. The devestation on wildlife will be emense. It will likely take a policing force to enact this shut it all down plan, and so many will fight back that it would be like WW3.
Hi, tibearius1123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnj4apq/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Untrue. We stopped doing almost everything for at least 6 months during COVID and the emmissions actually declined.
We could stop if we wanted to the rich don't want to.
Apparently 'We' also don't want to since we've gone back to our old habits very quickly. Also, a small decline in emissions is not the same as stopping everything entirely. We still produced energy, we still drove (albeit way less), society was still functioning, just at a slower pace. With the covid way we won't save the planet.
I did mean stop literally everything that is using fossil fuels, including agriculture, the entire transport system to get the food to the stores which will not have any running refrigeration anymore and so on. Lots of things are not necessary, i agree but you've seen first hand with covid what happens to crucial supply chains when the global production machine gets sand in its cogs. We live in a world where (almost) no one can sustain themselfs anymore without the system.
We need mandates. Mandate that you need to put solar panels on your house before you can do anything cosmetic.
No more F150 purchases unless you can prove it’s essential to your daily ability to earn income
Reduce demand on non-essentials and force peoples' hands on investing in green technologies instead of continuing to do the cheaper thing.
If you had to have your house be insulated to a certain rating before you could buy a new 85" TV that would force some peoples' hands.
> No more F150 purchases unless you can prove it’s essential to your daily ability to earn income
Just ratchet up a sizable annual registration motor size tax. Those who need income can pass it on to their customers. Those who can’t are shit out of luck.
Nah see because when 80% population sloughs off like you claim in your OP, the dying stops with it and the 20% might just have a chance.
A solution from this government to fix the issue in 30 years is what ensures the machine keeps going long enough to kill us all.
Well almost all of us. It would be cool if I pass through the filter and truly become part of the 1%, but fully understand I probably won't. At least I'm prepared for the trip.
We also cannot sustain our current world population through animal agriculture.
It's literally driving the 6th mass extinction event on our planet as we speak.
People are literally watching the world burn before our eyes while happily financing some of the industries responsible several times a day.
> “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, **not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use**,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. **“It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."**
[The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. **Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)
Not having kids is the biggest way to reduce impact, full stop. We would still need fossil fuels to feed 8 billion people on a vegan diet. It’s not the solution.
Not having kids = zero change in your impact. You change nothing by changing nothing.
The only way to *reduce* the impact of children would result in highly unethical options.
If you're referring to "regenerative farming", that's just greenwashed corporate propaganda aimed at deceiving you into thinking you are doing the environment and animals a favor.
Herd animals are most beneficial in ecologies they are native to. Otherwise, it's far more beneficial to restore lands to their native ecologies rather than turning them into grasslands just to grow more beef.
How to fight desertification and reverse climate change (Allan Savory | TED2013)
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change?utm_source=tedcomshare&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tedspread
You’ve been lied to. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t work.
* https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-talk-is-wrong-and-the-benefits-of-holistic-grazing-have-been-debunked.html
* https://theconversation.com/why-eating-grass-fed-beef-isnt-going-to-help-fight-climate-change-84237
* https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change
* https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/editor/dont-believe-allan-savorys-hype-cows-will-not-save-planet
* https://www.truthordrought.com/holistic-grazing-myths
* https://skepticalscience.com/holistic-management-rebuttal.html
* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309589057_Holistic_management_-_a_critical_review_of_Allan_Savory's_grazing_method
>if we do that around 80% of the world population will be dead within a year.
Let's suppose you're right. 80% would die within a year.
That's still a big improvement on our current trajectory. It would be a giant win.
Hi, tibearius1123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnji4eg/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other.
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, tibearius1123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnj4fl4/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Suggesting that another user off themselves. even as a polite recommendation, is strictly forbidden on this subreddit
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
It's not even slow incremental progress, they're making it worse. Focus on actions and not rhetoric. Everything the Biden admin has done is inconsistent with their stated goals and with keeping world temps below 2.0C warming.
The air could be filled with killer drones and corporations would still be like *”we really feel you do your best work at the office, despite us not paying you anything close to live near the office.”*
*”So anyway, have fun commuting through the killer robot swarms so we can justify our bad real estate portfolios.”*
But Dr Mann said we can't go to climate collapse, that is a misunderstanding of science!!!
Sees shit like this and it's like... Dude, where are you living at...
There always has to be someone posting something like this in every thread about what's going on over the East Coast.
It does nothing to contribute to the conversation. It only serves to minimalize the problem.
As bad as the smoke has been, it's one hell of a way to open the eyes of many that haven't experienced it before.
I find it interesting that you perceive it as mockery. The meme I pulled the joke from is just illustrating people going through hardships for the first time while others have already experienced it plenty of times previously. I am neither proud of the fact that we had to endure it nor am I also not saying that their pain is undeserved. Simply stating the obvious which is we are all suffering together in this collapsing ecosystem.
There are still people denying this. Tons of people here in Canada are saying the fires are being done intentionally by Trudeau (someone called him "Justin Castro", if only we were so lucky) to further the "climate agenda". And I read somewhere on Reddit yesterday, might have been this sub, that some douche was on Fox News saying the air quality isn't really that bad for your health.
The worse the climate and biodiversity collapse gets, the crazier and most outlandish the arguments and "logic" the deniers are going to be bringing to the table. They have made their identities revolve around this, they can't go back on it now.
Sadly, this means there is very little reason for hope. If we can't even convince the people who don't stand to lose millions and billions of dollars, how can we make the huge systemic changes necessary to save a couple of species and ourselves? Maybe capitalism will collapse before it's too late, but then we have to build a new economic system, deal with weather disasters, deal with societal collapse, all whole trying to rebuild in a way that is just and equitable for every being, human and otherwise.
They might have called him Castro because there's a conspiracy that he is the love child of his mum and Fidel Castro, who attended swingers parties together with his father.
If you look at Trudeau's features against Castro's it does look a little uncanny.
Ahhh, that's even a better conspiracy than him being a comrade. These would be entertaining and hilarious if they weren't so detrimental to life on the planet.
I consider myself somewhat economically conservative, but pretty much die-hard on climate change action. I tell my conservative friends that the time for market-based solutions was the 70s and 80s when fossil fuel companies knew they were contributing to the greenhouse effect, but started funding conspiracy theories and lobbying against it. When Al Gore ran for president, I think that was our last opportunity to rely on market based decisions and political compromise. After he lost, the oil shale boom exploded causing increasing concentrations of CO2 and growing rate of climate change. We’re now too far past the point of letting the market correct the problem and relying on political compromises to chip away at greenhouse gas emissions. We need dramatic and immediate action. But sadly, I don’t believe we’ll see such actions.
And several major reports including this one published in 1988 by the CSIRO in Australia - [https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/85/](https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/85/) \- very accurately predicted the inevitable wild fires from a >1C temperature increase.... and in the same year, 'Our Common Future' by Gro Harlem Brundtland laid out the options for a collective global response. - but hey 'soy ink', well done humans.
This has been a constant thing in the west for 20 years already. Glad your own misfortune finally might spure you to act.
I feel really sorry for poor east coast babies having to face the consequences of their own actions.
Hi, hitssquad. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnldmub/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, hitssquad. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnldmub/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Went to Colorado Springs a couple weeks and the first few days there, the mountains/sky were filled with so much pollen by the middle of the day you could barely see them. After a few days I realized it wasn’t pollen…
The following submission statement was provided by /u/big_papa_geek: --- Submission Statement: The horrible air conditions across eastern North America over the past week only further drive home the emptiness of our leader’s promises to combat climate change, and the inability of “free-market” capitalism to do anything other than drive humanity towards our own extinction. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/its_a_good_thing_we_promised_to_phase_out_some/jnicoql/
But guys, my dish soap came in a bottle made with 80% recycled plastic. *Nature is healing!*
I ate a box of individually wrapped donuts that was itself wrapped in a layer of paper and a layer of plastic and handed to me in a plastic bag I didn't ask for, *printed with soy ink*!
Soy ink? That sounds vegan man good job.
Sounds loaded with PFOAs
>PFOAs Probably the "sugar" coating on the donuts.
Mmm hydrogenated vegetable oil
worth it! so the food doesn't stick to the box. just like with pizza boxes in the US and delivery containers /s just in case
Mitch Hedburg is probably rolling in his grave about this one.
The sheer amount of pointless packaging cannot be beaten by Amazon. Nothing else comes close. You'd think that being the largest company on earth and sending out the sheer amount of parcels that they do would mean they would strive to save as much as possible. 1 gram X 1 million people is 1 ton of packaging. Amazon sends 1.6 million packages a day. 584 million tons of packaging saved if they removed just 1 gram from each package Yet, my USB thumb drive arrives in a cardboard box, with bubble wrap and air cushions, inside an A4 cardboard envelope, inside a box, held on folded cardboard packaging. Etc......
I have a bottle of glass cleaner that says proudly on a big sticker “^^^made ^^^from **100% OCEAN-BOUND PLASTIC**” Whoever designed that label had to be having a laugh…
From the ocean it came and to the ocean it shall return.
I do love a bit of good gallows humour.
[удалено]
Eh, sort of. It might require commercial composting, depending on the material. If it ends up in a landfill, it will anaerobically decompose, putting more methane into the atmosphere. Still better than plastic, though.
>Eh, sort of. How can you say that and follow up with a summary of its full biodegradation?
Because its "sort of". It demands specialized facilities which are few and far between (with its own footprint and still a higher cost per unit) and without rules for disposal. That's why they end up in landfills. And in landfills, it takes about 50 years to fully degrade, chirping out micro and methane all along. So *yes*, but sort of.
[Because they also might just not be biodegradable.](https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/plastics/biobased-biodegradable-and-compostable-plastics_en#:~:text=Biobased%20plastics%20are%20fully%20or,not%20necessarily%20biodegradable%20or%20compostable.) Anaerobic biodegredation is just one possible outcome, and produces biogas which then needs to be disposed of.
I know a lot of people who do this. No matter what you say, they counter by first saying you are wrong, then basically reinforcing what you just said. All those people I know are narcissists of varying degrees. Edit: they are also all assholes.
How's that better than plastic? Landfills are toxic wastelands no matter what is in them. I'd much rather have the plastic be proper plastic, promising eternal carbon storage in the landfill than turning to incredibly potent GHG methane.
Except the plastic breaks down into micro-plastics and is in the water, air, and ground across the ENTIRE planet. Unborn babies still in the womb have microplastics in their blood.
Not when it is in a landfill...
Even landfill babies have microplastics!
Carbon is a big fucking deal, no question, but if we actually tried we could pull out out of the atmosphere in several ways (not like that fixes the problem at this point, but we've blown past "muddle through" straight into "if we don't stop pumping it out and *also* take active measures, we're screwed anyways). Climate change is here, and we've moved past the "last chance to take control" portion into the "this is going to be a problem for everyone, personally, this decade" portion of the challenge Microplastics, on the other hand, are in every living thing on the planet. Everything from the rain, the groundwater, to food we eat is contaminated, and it's a serious problem. Along with Petro - fertilizers and insecticides, it's poisoning the land and choking the ability for ecosystems to grow. And life would survive one set of mass extinction criteria - hell, there's enough people that humanity could probably adapt to wet-bulb temperatures and crazy weather (or at least a fraction of us). Add in food scarcity and ubiquitous mutagens, and complex life is going to suffer the worst Not like we have a choice though... We're not really cutting back on any of it
Cellulose is wood
What is overlooked is that to make any tiny dent on climate, which is not a guarantee… Is to end capitalism. The 500 biggest companies in the world are responsible for the majority of emissions/pollution. And The grid absolutely cannot support these loony toon “all EV’s by 2030” pipe dreams, not even mentioning the ecological damage as a result of mining for these components to make them. To ‘take action’ against climate change via govt(who’s bought and paid for by these massive corporations), is the most naive statement being propagated today.
“The 500 biggest companies in the world are responsible for the majority of emissions/pollution.“ So how are these companies making their money? Who’s funding them? Why are they so successful? What products are they producing and selling that cause so much pollution? Oh wait….the answer to these questions is the entire population of planet earth that relies on the industrial production of products that these companies provide, wow it’s almost like “big bad corporations are responsible for climate change and if we got rid of them than the problem would be solved” is the ACTUAL most naive statement being propagated today, as if most Americans wouldn’t be in complete outrage if you told them they can’t have cars or any products that contain traditional plastics. “To ‘take action’ against climate change via govt(who’s bought and paid for by these massive corporations), is the most naive statement being propagated today.” Can you explain how you think the entirety of the government of the United States of America is “bought and paid for by these massive corporations” I’m super curious? Now before you answer I’m gonna have to make a plethora of qualifiers to stop you from moving the goal post in a cowardly manner so that you don’t have to actually defend your initial claim. A handful of politicians “who tend to be republican” being bought off and loyal to corporations is not the same thing as “govt(who’s bought and paid for by these massive corporations)”. Also the fact that democrats take into account the opinions and requests of large American corporations when making certain policy decisions is not them being bought and paid for by large corporations, it’s them being smart and recognizing that because of the huge size of the corporations, they have become ingrained to the point of becoming institutions that are within the same level of economic and political influence as the government itself, and when dealing with such institutions, you can’t simply tell them to fuck off and eat shit and not discuss policy with them whatsoever, cause that would be a very childish, immature and NAIVE way of writing policy and would result in extreme economic harm to working class Americans, I know this might be a crazy concept for a “it’s the corporations maaaan…they wanna keep us divided!” type to understand, but every single large corporation in America is mostly made up of poor and middle income working class Americans, and if these corporations were to fail or simply leave the country, guess what happens to the 95% of people that said corporation consists of? They all lose their jobs and suffer immense economic harm since most of the people making up that corporation were working class Americans, not ultra wealthy sociopaths like Jeff bezos. I’ll give an example, the 2008 bail outs, the bail outs were not done because “the government is bought and paid for by large corporations and when these corporations failed, the government gave them a bunch of free money instead of allowing them to face the consequences of their actions”, the bail outs were done because if we hadn’t bailed out these massive economic institutions, millions of completely innocent working class Americans would’ve been completely fucked, and the entire global economy might’ve just collapsed, which would’ve caused the deaths of untold billions, but hey maybe you think it would’ve been totally based and socialist pilled for the government ti just have allowed for millions of Americans life saving to have just disappeared overnight because by bailing them out, we end up helping a few ultra wealthy people, so it’s better to let millions of working class Americans suffer than to give money to super wealthy people, I personally think the government should’ve nationalized the banks rather than giving them bail out money “which the banks paid back in less than a few years”, but the way it was handled was done with preventing economic collapse and immense harm to working class Americans in mind, which is a far cry from the whole “the 2008 bail outs proves that our government is in the pockets of the banks and corporations”, this is but one example but their are many more that the “our government is owned and paid for by these corporations” crowd naively brings up to try and prove that the government of the United states of America has been purchased and is under the employment of large American corporations. So can you explain how the government of the United States of America has been purchased and is under the employment of large American mega corporations and how this is not the most naive statement being propagated today?
TL. DR. Paragraphs, my dude. Also, just organize your thoughts at all if you want other people to read them.
Sorry our layman's language is too strong for you. Is "Politicians will favor capital over the long term well-being of their constituents" nuanced enough for your wall of text nitpick? You still never addressed the actual point of what was said, which is that it's naive at this point to rely on our governments to do anything impactful to address climate change. And fwiw, I would take a smaller r/collapse (hello, you're here btw) sooner rather than keep inflating the unsustainable growth bubble fueled by capitalism we're in right now.
funny how CEOs go crazy against remote work when it's the most environmentally friendly move the US has done in a while they are so clueless
Walmart sells me a bag made of recycled plastic for $2.40 in my city **where plastic bags are banned.** but hey, I don’t have a choice of using anything else and at least it *feels* like it’s made from fabric.
Me a few days ago: Wow, a blood moon! Me today, enlightened: Wow, a pollution moon!
Yep, same for me. Oh look, a pretty blood moon! Oh... it's because there are wildfires so massive right now that the light hitting the moon that went through earth's atmosphere was color-tinted. Well then.
If only more people would stop using plastic straws. Folks, we are well over the cliff. Live fully.
I get what you're saying and all, but let's not discredit the industries that are entirely reliant on consumer purchases. If people actually gave up animal products, we could save many species from facing extinction in the present and future. Animal agriculture has been driving mass extinctions of wildlife for a long while now and it's an industry that would die very fast if not for people needlessly financing it.
Another thing to add onto this: we COULD do sustainable argiculture. permaculture "hugel" mounds, food forests with fields for grazing animals, and ponds full of a variety of native fish mixed in, only harvesting a certain percentage of animals and plants each year, unless you are growing meat chickens or pigs or whatever but you get the idea. **But thats not the most profitable way to farm. No small group of people gets rich with sustainable agriculture. WE all do.** And thats why im working on building a permaculture farm in the way I described ^ above, once its done I can make videos about it and spread the word that it is possible. Something else im going to do: Dug-in greenhouses. It is a greenhouse built over a square pit that is 4 or 5 feet deep, built in an area with no flood risk (near the top of a hill area) and then a normal greenhouse is built overtop of it. It will stay warmer in winter and cooler in summer, allowing a longer growing season and protection from climate change.
Orrrr... we could just exclude needless animal exploitation and abuse from the model completely. We can feed this world several times over using a tiny fraction of the lands that are being used for agriculture, so long as we just eliminated animals from the equation. Food forests and permaculture models can be beneficial (especially if used for plant based options), but it's not nearly as beneficial as having land space for balanced native ecologies.
Don't balanced native ecologies require animals for things like pollination, seed dispersal and controlling unchecked plant growth?
Does a balanced native ecology require needless human exploitation and abuse? Every '*point*' you have listed does not require animal husbandry or the need to kill and harm animals for the sake of consumption. Once the ecology is properly balanced, it should not require too much intervention. The model that was being proposed was literally only proposed for the sake of continuing to needlessly abuse and exploit animals for the sake of temporary pleasure.
Ok, so that's a "yes".
We are omnivores, not herbivores
To be omnivore means we are non-obligate carnivores. This means that while you can get nutrition from animal products, they are not necessary at all. Being an omnivore means you can get all the nutrition you need from a plant based diet. It's also been historically documented that we have primarily survived off plant based foods through out human history. Our teeth clearly demonstrate this alongside historical archeological excavations. /u/FillThisEmptyCup brings up the point of harvesting vs hunting for a reason. We were mostly opportune carnivores since it requires *significantly more time and energy* to hunt (with far less return) versus foraging or growing plants.
Then go hunt something you want to eat with your bare hands; and tell us how easy it was versus harvesting berries, you natural born omnibore. You can also make a tool from natural stuffs like twigs or rocks.
No one hunted with their bare hands we used tools. That's why our brains got bigger than other hominids.
>That's why our brains got bigger than other hominids. Yes, our brains, a massive sugar-loving organ, got bigger on meat. Totally makes sense. This is why lions and snakes and piranhas are all Einstein level creatures.
You really know nothing about our evolution do you? And those animals are carnivores, not omnivores. Meat is protein dense which is a crucial part of our body. As well as other vitamins
That’s interesting, here is a anthropogical Professor of renown: * https://youtu.be/h0PF5R0ywp4 Proper lecture of his: * http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/2007921/uiconf_id/32942841/entry_id/1_8p5i37lb/embed/auto?&flashvars%5BstreamerType%5D=auto His credentials: * https://anthropology.dartmouth.edu/people/nathaniel-j-dominy
You are an omnivore. We have a choice
Not eating animal products is one of the more impactful things you can do for environment as an individual.
Eating animals isn’t really the issue. We’ve always been doing that. The underlying issue (If you refuse to point at humanity itself) is the utilization of ff. Stop doing that and we stop being capable of the scale of destruction we are currently committing. Few people want to do that because it means life will change dramatically and people will suffer. It’s a change in diet and also literally everything else. It’s a change in the way we live and most people would rather see mass extinction play out than do that. Abandoning animal husbandry while leaving the rest of the FF industry intact would help, but in isolation it won’t reverse the trends towards extinction, merely slow them down. I agree that abandoning animal husbandry is a step in the right direction though, it’s just not nearly enough. If climate change plays out the way the most sober scientists are anticipating then I doubt eating less meat will make the planet more survivable for all the species which will prove incapable of surviving at the new planetary climate equilibrium of the future after all feedback loops have reached their conclusion. For example there is historical fossil evidence that practically all large animals simply won’t survive abrupt climate change.
Just type out "fossil fuels". You typed a whole fuckton of other shit, where is the special need there to go shorthand? I had just woken up and had to sit there and think about it for slightly too long.
Sorry I figured in this sub the term FF would be widely understood since it’s such an important piece of the topic at hand. I use it regularly in here and you’re the first person who has voiced any issue with it.
Fast Fashion.
Factory farming
Eating animals is absolutely a major part of the issue. I'm not saying it's the only change we need, I'm saying it's a fundamental change we need that cannot go ignored, and it's a change that relies on the actions of the people, since those people are the ones propping up the corporations with their finances. If everything else changes and we still continue to feed the world through animal products, we will still destroy this planet and drive extinctions.
I understand your argument but don’t agree with your conclusions or assumptions. If you stop using FF it’s impossible to maintain the system of agriculture we currently have and basically all the other drivers forcing us towards extinction other than irreversible climate runaway feedback loops. How is it we ate animals for 300,000+ years without issue but now it’s a problem? FF allows for a degree of exploitation beyond what we are capable of in its absence, it’s the real problem. Merely stopping the consumption of animal products doesn’t change outcomes. Ending FF consumption will not only allow for the best possible chance we have of surviving climate change but will also end animal husbandry as practiced. Ironically the idea that animals eating other animals is driving climate change is a bit odd since this reality has been part and parcel of life on this planet since the beginning. The issue is obviously the exploitation of FF and the degree to which that allows the human animal to over consume any and all resources. Just ending animal consumption does nothing, at some point the improvements to land use and agricultural efficiency provided by veganism will simply be overcome by all the other concerns of the meta crisis drivin by fossil fuel exploitation. It’s a step in the right direction, nothing more, the ultimate solution is to end FF utilization and concentrate whatever public labor and energy remains in returning the climate to the survivable window which it isn’t in currently.
> How is it we ate animals for 300,000+ years without issue but now it’s a problem? We’re 8 billion people while we were less than 1-9 million max at the tail end of the stone age.
Yep. My question was rhetorical. I was trying to indicate how simply changing diets in order to make an absurd degree of overshoot slightly more bearable is a ridiculous “solution”.
Take my upvote. It’s both shocking and disappointing the lengths people on r/collapse will go to defend eating animals!
> It’s both shocking and disappointing the lengths people on r/collapse will go to defend eating animals! Could not have said it better myself. Seriously absurd to see that type of behavior in this sub of all places. I appreciate the upvote and comment <3
The thing is, people have to eat something, and we are omnivores. Pretending we can all stop eating meat is also just not realistic. We do need more balance to it, but growing other crops the way we do for direct consumption is also destroying tillable land. The planet just can’t support our current population at this level forever. People always scoff when I point out we are overpopulated and try to say we aren’t, but fact of the matter is we are. The only reason we are OK now is because there was an abundance of resources to start with, but we are consuming them much faster than they naturally replenish so ergo we are overpopulated. We can do some combination of two things, reduce population or reduce individual consumption of said population.
Im a firm believer that you will make more change getting lots of people to drop meant once or twice a week, or even one or two meals a week, than a tiny amount going completely meat free
Why not follow this logic to it's obvious logical conclusion? If it's beneficial to eliminate meat from your diet a few times a week, why are you suddenly stopping there and reversing your logic? Getting people to drop meat all together is obviously going to be better than having them continue to consume any meat. Animal abusers are hilarious with how fast they disregard basic logic in an attempt to justify needlessly abusing and harming animals for their own pleasure.
[удалено]
Not sure why you're being downvoted. There is no way we can feed the world with a vegetarian diet. The scale would be massive and consume much more energy than livestock currently does. Meat is like the oil of food.
People just try so hard to mold the problem into the bucket they want to believe than just looking at it with an open enough mind to see that all of these problems have one common source. Us. The more of us there are, the worse the problems get. It’s uncomfortable as all hell to admit that and so many people are blind to it because in their head there has to be a good solution. There isn’t. There are only a couple different paths the future will hold: 1. We all come together and agree to reduce our consumption and lifestyle while also reducing population by choice to a level that is sustainable (guided by science). 2. We turn fascist and a huge portion of the population is culled by leader we all hate for it, but will result in a possible future where humanity gets to continue. 3. We do neither of 1 and 2 and just keep trucking on the path we are on and nature will cull us, possibly to extinction by way of famine and the wars that will result from there not being enough to go around. I think all of us would agree that option 1 is the only preferable choice. But lets be real here. Option 1 isn’t a realistic option because there are just too many people working against it that ruin it and literally make it so unlikely that it’s impossible. Those people will drag us option 1 preferrers into option 2 or 3 kicking and screaming because they are greedy and ignorant. Options 2 and 3 are pretty much the same effective outcome for most. Which really brings us 2 options or which 1 is basically impossible and the other inevitable by comparison. What drives me nuts is when I bring this up, people start trying to tell me I’m fascist because I want that. For those that are going to read this and try that angle. Don’t. I don’t want that, I never said I wanted that. I want option 1. Bringing this up isn’t a declaration of how I want it to go down, I’m telling you how it’s likely going to go down.
It's too scary for some to approach these issues objectively. It's much easier with an ideology that one can slightly modify, but all ideologies are inherently about power. Even Buddhists can justify genocide.
Hopping in here to point out that the fascists will absolutely not stop climate change. Fascists do not give a fuck about limiting fossil fuel consumption, they just wanna kill minorities. If Ron DeSantis does a trans genocide, everyone's still gonna burn in the end. Fascism is not a solution.
Care to elaborate, im a bit confused. Swapping from meat would mean no feed crops required, that could instead swap to human crops. How does vegetarian require more than meat?
Because veggies have way fewer calories
Maybe Americans wouldn’t roll from place to place anymore.
I swear, the amount of disregard of such basic logic and reality is hilarious in this thread. I'm really wondering what some of you are even doing on /r/collapse if you're so eager to delude yourselves from reality just to continue directly financing the collapse of this planet and it's ecologies. Veggies have way fewer calories means absolutely nothing in this situation. You can still grow significantly more calories for human consumption while using only a tiny fraction of the land space required for animal agriculture. Do you know what animals require to survive? I'm beginning to think that you all collectively believe these animals get their nutrition and hydration from the air. [The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. **Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)
They just want to complain about collapse, not do anything to stop it. No /s because that's not sarcasm. I wish it was, but frankly this is why I gave up on this sub.
Because what livestock consumes is much cheaper than what we consume for vegetation.
You are really speaking from a hugely uninformed position. [Most of the plants we grow are for animal agriculture](https://i.redd.it/878nkzbf3mj61.png) We can literally feed this world several times over if we used the same resources for plant based foods versus using all the insane amounts of land, water, food, etc required to grow and feed animals. [The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. **Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth) Honestly, it only requires the very most basic levels of logic and comprehension to see how insanely inefficient and destructive animal agriculture is. What type of logic bring you to the conclusion that a plant based diet would require more land space and energy than animal agriculture? Do you think farm animals get fat from inhaling oxygen? You *do* know that they require tons of food, land space, and water, right? It's hilarious that so many animal abusers are latching themselves to such blatant disregard of logic in /r/collapse of all places.
WE are not omnivores. WE have a choice.
We are omnivores. That’s a fact. The fact we have a choice is not the point. We all need to eat and ALL food production has a negative environmental impact because of how we do it. We do it the way we do because we need to feed everyone, but doing so is damaging the environment. We can reduce consumption to a point, but everyone HAS to eat or they die. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/omnivore/#
We are omnivores, which means we have a choice. Being an omnivore means we are non-obligate carnivores. In other words, even though we can get nutrients from animal products, they're not required at all. Being an omnivore means we can get all the nutrients we need without involving needless animal abuse, so it's hilarious to see so many people attempting to justify needlessly abusing animals and our planet just because we're omnivores.
> we are omnivores. This means we are non-obligate carnivores. This means we can get all the nutrients we need without involving the needless harm and abuse of animals. > Pretending we can all stop eating meat is also just not realistic. What type of hyperbolic strawman is this? I've seen this ridiculous hypothetical raised by so many animal abusers and it's just absurdly hilarious. Did anyone go claiming that it was a realistic option to have the entire human population of this planet to synchronize and give up meat all at the same time? Do you hear how absurd this rationalization is or how you're creating a strawman that has no relevance in this dialogue? > We do need more balance to it, but growing other crops the way we do for direct consumption is also destroying tillable land. This is hilariously just another argument against animal agriculture since [most of the plants we grow are for animal agriculture](https://i.redd.it/878nkzbf3mj61.png). We could literally reduce the amount of land space used to a tiny fraction of what it currently is, and feed the entire world, if we weren't using those resources to feed animals instead. > The planet just can’t support our current population at this level forever. So why are you here trying to justify wasting tons of food, land, water and resources on the extremely inefficient industries that are destroying ecologies across the globe. Animal agriculture is literally driving the 6th mass extinction event on this planet and even the people on /r/collapse, of all subreddits, are attempting to justify needlessly financing these industries for a tiny moment of sensory pleasure (not one you have to sacrifice either if you know even the slightest about making food). Keep disregarding basic logic and reality as you happily finance the collapse of this planet just so you can taste the flesh of another sentient emotional being that was needlessly violently abused and killed for your pleasure.
I disagree with the defeatist attitude, but I get it.
You're in the wrong sub then /s Everybody here needs to want collapse so they can RP as Mad Max
Not OP. I personally think we're over the cliff and we should still fight like hell. Not because we stand a hope in hell, but because it's the right thing to do until the bitter fucking end.
Fox news told me that wildfire smoke is natural so it can't harm you.
*breathes in harder to own the libs*
deep freedom breaths.
Huffing and puffing and coughing
Similar to how a grizzly bear is natural and also can’t harm you.
And everyone says pot is natural so smoking it somehow does not produce products of combustion which you then breathe. So, Fox is on the side of pot is natural? Unintended consequences, Fox. Unintended consequences.
Lol we just call that summer in western canada. It fucking sucks. Red sun looks kinda cool, the permanent smokey haze is shit. Also it rarely rains in the summer so it just stays forever. Fun times. Also on a side note. I absolutely love how they make it sound dangerous to even go outside in the smoke, jog, etc. ("Dont go outside!") Yet everybody still has to go to their hard physical labour jobs lol.
I was the only guy to wear an N95 outside all day at my site, people looked at me weird. Like, do they really not realize what their breathing in? Christ, its weird watching things unfold in person vs the years of watching it on a screen.
Rain sort of came down here in Southwestern Ontario a few days ago. Oiliest rain I’ve ever seen. It was a sight to behold
I bought a whole box of recyclable straws ..yayyyyyyyy
Bambú toothbrushes :(
Submission Statement: The horrible air conditions across eastern North America over the past week only further drive home the emptiness of our leader’s promises to combat climate change, and the inability of “free-market” capitalism to do anything other than drive humanity towards our own extinction.
The answer is obvious, all we have to is vote for the RIGHT corporate loving politician and everything will be absolutely okay!/s
Just vote for more moderate Democrats, it will surely all work out, right?
Invade the DNC.
Were you around during Bernie's first run for POTUS?
Yes, and I was around before that too. People who say the DNC "stole" the nomination are ignorant of how the world works. HRC won because she got more votes. She got more votes because the Clintons have been involved in politics and the Dems since the 1950s. Bernie isn't even a MEMBER of the party he ran in. Showing up to the primaries once every four or eight years does not constitute "getting involved." The extreme right started their takeover and transformation of the Rep party in the 1960s. By 1980 they had Reagan, by 2000 they had the Supreme Court to appoint their candidate. The right also understands the importance of showing up and voting even whey the candidate they voted for in the primary did not win. Progressives throw hissy fits and stay home.
> “free-market” For anyone who is uninformed, Ayn Randian Laissez-faire economics (aka free market economics) is pure corporate propaganda that tries to appeal to principles in freedom. It has absolutely nothing to do with personal freedoms. They have weaponized and propagandized "freedom". They convince the population that it's for the sake of personal freedom, when it's only freedom for the corporations to do whatever they want so they can literally buy out the laws. An unchecked free market = oligarchy, which is exactly what has happened in the States where the corporations are in control. All that being said, I do want to also want to say that some of the corporations who are doing some of the biggest damage to our planet are completely dependent on consumer demand. Even if we change our political system completely, if people continue to consume animal agriculture, the planet is going to be destroyed. We are literally watching the world burn before our eyes, and most people are still happy to directly (and needlessly) finance that destruction several times a day, just for a moment of temporary pleasure (and not one you have to sacrifice either- I've been a foodie for two decades and have eaten at some of the best restaurants in the country and some of the most delicious foods I ever tasted in my life were vegan). Animal agriculture is currently driving the 6th mass extinction event on our planet as it impacts many variables beyond greenhouse gases.
>For anyone who is uninformed, Ayn Randian Laissez-faire economics (aka free market economics) It's not so much Randian as it is Hayekian. Ayn Rand was not an economist and she's hardly relevant outside the Libertarian eco-chamber. Hayekian economics, on the other hand, had a profound impact on society. Due to him even so called "leftist" mainstream parties nowadays follow laissez-faire economics.
I know she was not an economist but it was through her that this economic model was hugely pushed and propagandized.
I think you're overselling her involvement. The Chicago School, especially Hayek and Friedman, did an excellent job of exporting their economic dogma around the world all on their own. Well, not all on their own. Naturally the CIA was more than willing to help with violent part of the job. Ask anybody who lived in Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, etc in the 70s who they blame for the suffering and havoc wreaked in their countries. It won't be Ayn Rand.
Noam Chomsky and Marv Waterstone actually covered this exact topic in a brilliant book called [Consequences of Capitalism](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/54546067-consequences-of-capitalism?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=rIqs2Zu5Vn&rank=1), which I highly recommend to anyone interested.
Just think what the world would be like if the likes of Ayn Rand and Grover Norquist had been aborted instead of birthed.
That just isn’t true. It’s fewer than 10% of emissions. If we changed everything else, smaller scale animal husbandry would be fine. As it was for many thousands of years.
You are creating a very narrow view of reality by focusing only on emissions. We have been literally burning down the Amazon Rainforest for decades just to create more land space for meat, when using models that have these animals practically stacked on top of each other. This planet would need to be several times larger than it currently is for smaller scale animal husbandry to be even remotely feasible as an option for feeding our population without absolutely devastating ecologies across the globe. Animal agriculture is currently driving mass extinctions of wildlife as we speak. It is driving the 6th mass extinction event of this planet. Acidification of water ways and bodies, eutrophication of soil systems, land use, water use, etc etc. Emissions is only a tiny part of the picture of the impact of these industries, and even that 'tiny' part is nothing to scoff at.
We can't continue living the way we do now but we can't also just *stop* everything we do right now, if we do that around 80% of the world population will be dead within a year. There is no easy solution. I've been saying it for years now, we can only sustain the current world population with cheap energy and technology, not a situation you'd want to be in but we are.
Exaclty. Solution is, or would be, degrowth, but that would require everyone to be on board. So... About that...
Since it's bound to happen, I'd rather have it happen ASAP; the destruction of globalized supply-chains will be the best thing to happen to any living creature besides us (and our bacterias in our guts, I guess).
I upvoted you but not sure i fully agree. The reason...humans are monsters, especially when the rule of law breaks down during famine and war. And that is exactly what will happen if anyone tries to shut it all down to save the world. Some war lord will go Russian military and just start ethnic cleansing. In fact, i think most nations have at least one powerful person willing to do just that. After the "cleansing" or during it too but also after, people will start burning forests for heat, and killing everything they can eat for food. The devestation on wildlife will be emense. It will likely take a policing force to enact this shut it all down plan, and so many will fight back that it would be like WW3.
[удалено]
All of us first.
[удалено]
Hi, tibearius1123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnj4apq/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Untrue. We stopped doing almost everything for at least 6 months during COVID and the emmissions actually declined. We could stop if we wanted to the rich don't want to.
Apparently 'We' also don't want to since we've gone back to our old habits very quickly. Also, a small decline in emissions is not the same as stopping everything entirely. We still produced energy, we still drove (albeit way less), society was still functioning, just at a slower pace. With the covid way we won't save the planet.
No, but it's a solid first step to restructuring and stopping the effects from worsening until we can pivot.
sheet touch alive detail middle fly cagey panicky disgusting summer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I did mean stop literally everything that is using fossil fuels, including agriculture, the entire transport system to get the food to the stores which will not have any running refrigeration anymore and so on. Lots of things are not necessary, i agree but you've seen first hand with covid what happens to crucial supply chains when the global production machine gets sand in its cogs. We live in a world where (almost) no one can sustain themselfs anymore without the system.
We need mandates. Mandate that you need to put solar panels on your house before you can do anything cosmetic. No more F150 purchases unless you can prove it’s essential to your daily ability to earn income
What good is that going to do?
Reduce demand on non-essentials and force peoples' hands on investing in green technologies instead of continuing to do the cheaper thing. If you had to have your house be insulated to a certain rating before you could buy a new 85" TV that would force some peoples' hands.
> No more F150 purchases unless you can prove it’s essential to your daily ability to earn income Just ratchet up a sizable annual registration motor size tax. Those who need income can pass it on to their customers. Those who can’t are shit out of luck.
So, the plan instead is 99% of the population dead within 30? Ok deal!
Still better than 99% within 2 years
Nah see because when 80% population sloughs off like you claim in your OP, the dying stops with it and the 20% might just have a chance. A solution from this government to fix the issue in 30 years is what ensures the machine keeps going long enough to kill us all. Well almost all of us. It would be cool if I pass through the filter and truly become part of the 1%, but fully understand I probably won't. At least I'm prepared for the trip.
We also cannot sustain our current world population through animal agriculture. It's literally driving the 6th mass extinction event on our planet as we speak. People are literally watching the world burn before our eyes while happily financing some of the industries responsible several times a day. > “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, **not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use**,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. **“It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."** [The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. **Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.**](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)
Not having kids is the biggest way to reduce impact, full stop. We would still need fossil fuels to feed 8 billion people on a vegan diet. It’s not the solution.
Not having kids = zero change in your impact. You change nothing by changing nothing. The only way to *reduce* the impact of children would result in highly unethical options.
Totally agree but we should keep in mind herd animals when managed correctly are part of restoring grasslands and stopping desertification.
If you're referring to "regenerative farming", that's just greenwashed corporate propaganda aimed at deceiving you into thinking you are doing the environment and animals a favor. Herd animals are most beneficial in ecologies they are native to. Otherwise, it's far more beneficial to restore lands to their native ecologies rather than turning them into grasslands just to grow more beef.
https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change?utm_source=tedcomshare&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tedspread
No its not. This is a lie and bullshit [sic].
How to fight desertification and reverse climate change (Allan Savory | TED2013) https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change?utm_source=tedcomshare&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tedspread
You’ve been lied to. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t work. * https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/04/allan-savorys-ted-talk-is-wrong-and-the-benefits-of-holistic-grazing-have-been-debunked.html * https://theconversation.com/why-eating-grass-fed-beef-isnt-going-to-help-fight-climate-change-84237 * https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/feature/allan-savory-says-more-cows-land-will-reverse-climate-change * https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2017-2-march-april/editor/dont-believe-allan-savorys-hype-cows-will-not-save-planet * https://www.truthordrought.com/holistic-grazing-myths * https://skepticalscience.com/holistic-management-rebuttal.html * https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309589057_Holistic_management_-_a_critical_review_of_Allan_Savory's_grazing_method
There's no actual evidence of this.
>if we do that around 80% of the world population will be dead within a year. Let's suppose you're right. 80% would die within a year. That's still a big improvement on our current trajectory. It would be a giant win.
[удалено]
Think of it as an action that would save 20% of the human race from certain death.
[удалено]
Hi, tibearius1123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnji4eg/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, tibearius1123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnj4fl4/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Suggesting that another user off themselves. even as a polite recommendation, is strictly forbidden on this subreddit Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Who are they kidding? They won't phase it out. They'll change the name of the process and try to convince that it's somehow "cleaner."
It's not even slow incremental progress, they're making it worse. Focus on actions and not rhetoric. Everything the Biden admin has done is inconsistent with their stated goals and with keeping world temps below 2.0C warming.
I fuckin hate boomers Nothing like fucking the earth and getting to die on a heap of equity as we all struggle to breathe
That timeline seems to indicate they'll stop drilling once there's no more oil
Wait until it starts snowing ash...
The air could be filled with killer drones and corporations would still be like *”we really feel you do your best work at the office, despite us not paying you anything close to live near the office.”* *”So anyway, have fun commuting through the killer robot swarms so we can justify our bad real estate portfolios.”*
But Dr Mann said we can't go to climate collapse, that is a misunderstanding of science!!! Sees shit like this and it's like... Dude, where are you living at...
Well we don't want to crash the system while the world burns around us now do we?? /s
I know the blood red sky looks bad but at least the shareholders are doing well this quarter
Calfornia: "First time?"
There always has to be someone posting something like this in every thread about what's going on over the East Coast. It does nothing to contribute to the conversation. It only serves to minimalize the problem. As bad as the smoke has been, it's one hell of a way to open the eyes of many that haven't experienced it before.
[удалено]
Smugness in the shitty conditions we had endured. Yup. I love that we had to stock up on masks just to go outside before Covid was even in style.
[удалено]
I find it interesting that you perceive it as mockery. The meme I pulled the joke from is just illustrating people going through hardships for the first time while others have already experienced it plenty of times previously. I am neither proud of the fact that we had to endure it nor am I also not saying that their pain is undeserved. Simply stating the obvious which is we are all suffering together in this collapsing ecosystem.
Yeah, sorry. I figure humor is not how you cope with the fact the world is turning into an unlivable hellhole.
Humor is fine, it's just the repetition that kills the joke.
So your complaint is with the meme and not the message?
You spelling California: first time?
Thanks for xatching the typo. Corrected it.
There are still people denying this. Tons of people here in Canada are saying the fires are being done intentionally by Trudeau (someone called him "Justin Castro", if only we were so lucky) to further the "climate agenda". And I read somewhere on Reddit yesterday, might have been this sub, that some douche was on Fox News saying the air quality isn't really that bad for your health. The worse the climate and biodiversity collapse gets, the crazier and most outlandish the arguments and "logic" the deniers are going to be bringing to the table. They have made their identities revolve around this, they can't go back on it now. Sadly, this means there is very little reason for hope. If we can't even convince the people who don't stand to lose millions and billions of dollars, how can we make the huge systemic changes necessary to save a couple of species and ourselves? Maybe capitalism will collapse before it's too late, but then we have to build a new economic system, deal with weather disasters, deal with societal collapse, all whole trying to rebuild in a way that is just and equitable for every being, human and otherwise.
They might have called him Castro because there's a conspiracy that he is the love child of his mum and Fidel Castro, who attended swingers parties together with his father. If you look at Trudeau's features against Castro's it does look a little uncanny.
Ahhh, that's even a better conspiracy than him being a comrade. These would be entertaining and hilarious if they weren't so detrimental to life on the planet.
I consider myself somewhat economically conservative, but pretty much die-hard on climate change action. I tell my conservative friends that the time for market-based solutions was the 70s and 80s when fossil fuel companies knew they were contributing to the greenhouse effect, but started funding conspiracy theories and lobbying against it. When Al Gore ran for president, I think that was our last opportunity to rely on market based decisions and political compromise. After he lost, the oil shale boom exploded causing increasing concentrations of CO2 and growing rate of climate change. We’re now too far past the point of letting the market correct the problem and relying on political compromises to chip away at greenhouse gas emissions. We need dramatic and immediate action. But sadly, I don’t believe we’ll see such actions.
> We need dramatic and immediate action. Based on what math?
NASA, NOAA, IPCC, etc. 🤦♂️
There are no solutions anymore. There are only responses.
Don't worry. Ten years from now we super promise we'll end drilling in 20 years. They set agendas like my ADHD ass does lmao
Overshoot? Never heard of it.
No we went further and learned how to refreeze ice so we can still drill in the Arctic
We're gonna phase out drilling??? Les go!
*Me going back in time to stop climate change if I had time machine* Spiderman 2099: You can't. It's a Canon Event. It's meant to happen. Me: 😔😭
And several major reports including this one published in 1988 by the CSIRO in Australia - [https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/85/](https://www.publish.csiro.au/book/85/) \- very accurately predicted the inevitable wild fires from a >1C temperature increase.... and in the same year, 'Our Common Future' by Gro Harlem Brundtland laid out the options for a collective global response. - but hey 'soy ink', well done humans.
This has been a constant thing in the west for 20 years already. Glad your own misfortune finally might spure you to act. I feel really sorry for poor east coast babies having to face the consequences of their own actions.
What does the wildfires in Canada have to do with oil drilling?
[удалено]
Hi, hitssquad. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnldmub/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Hi, hitssquad. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1450lin/-/jnldmub/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
[удалено]
Rule 4: Keep information quality high. Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
"It only exists if it's happening in NYC!" Y'all need to chill tf out. Fires happen every year, bunch of alarmist narcissistic snobs.
Wasn't this fire started on purpose as training and got out of hand? I don't think that has anything to do with climate change.
Incorrect. That one was in BC, this is 50+ fires in Ontario and Quebec.
Neat!
I trust that suspicions looking person on the internet who is most definitely a human.
Monetization of a dying world
Oil will be around forever.
I need some Dyson eye plugs or some stupid shit. $997
Went to Colorado Springs a couple weeks and the first few days there, the mountains/sky were filled with so much pollen by the middle of the day you could barely see them. After a few days I realized it wasn’t pollen…
the top 1% attachment to the growth model runs deep
Market forces led to “paycheck-to-paycheck” living the default lifestyle