890
Lumberjacks vs. Web Developers
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
890 points (96.2% liked)
Comic Strips
12507 readers
1557 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
People need houses, toilet paper and pallets to ship all of their food around the world. As with most things, the problem is the size of the human population: not the specific methods by which we go about destroying the earth. There's just too many of us. The balance is off.
Not really. This argument is just eco-fascism.
We could cut down on the amount we consume, and be fine with our current population, but that would make the capitalists sad, so we don't.
Something else people don't stop to think about is that we could also consume the same amount with a lower negative impact but just create less excess value whilst doing so. If we produced the goods people use every day to a good quality to no purpose other than because people need (want) them we could do so far more ecologically sensitively than we do now. The only difference would be that some tangentially involved rent-seeking lunatic would have to settle for a thinner coat of gold leaf on the toilet seat in the staff bathroom on their second yacht.
There's an astonishing amount of deadwood we can carve away from our production lines in the form of wealth production for the existing wealth class before we need to ask ~~their serfs~~ regular people to make sacrifices.
Or at least there was. We've pushed things to such a state of emergency that we probably do now need to make every possible change on all fronts if we wish to minimise the devastation from climate change. We still need to ensure we include the main driving factors in causing these issues within that though.
There's also the fact that my profession consumes large sheets of steel for vanity. But putting people to work is the prime directive, doing useful work is far lower on the priority list. Questioning useless waste of time and energy is even lower again, much lower than the goal of preventing excess free time.
Until you people change, I will continue consuming your carbon-heavy electricity and steel, and consuming my time, for the purpose of ensuring I am allowed food and housing. And I will eat a red meat diet out of spite.
Sounds like a terrible trade for all parties, but you lot seem to prefer it.
I don't have a single clue what you are talking about just FYI.
I hadn't read his comment when I made mine but it says the same thing if that helps.
It makes me want to scream constantly.