935
submitted 8 months ago by kapulsa@feddit.de to c/climatememes@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 16 points 8 months ago

mhh. nope.

Best way to reduce consumption is preventing rich people from obscene over consumption. Do you know how many average children could grow up and life a lifetime on the emissions of Tylor Swifts private jet tours? (Arbitrary example, because it has lots of attention right now. Goes for the lifestyle of most rich and super rich people)

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

What if I told you, on the world stage, "rich person" encompasses most Americans.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 5 points 8 months ago

What if i told you with renewable energy, public transit mobility, an end to the 9to5 and consume excess hamster wheel, proper recycling and sustainable products everyone could life a good life, many americans even a better life?

The world has enough ressources to sustain a larger human population and give everyone the means to a decent life. It is solely in the way things are done right now, in particular the obscenely rich, that are unsustainable.

[-] buzz86us@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

A decommodification of housing would be amazing as well.

[-] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz -2 points 8 months ago
  • sustain a larger human population

No, we are way over budget on people as it is. Sustain means 'indefinitely under current conditions'.

[-] tryptaminev@feddit.de 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Can you point me to a dictionary that specifies, that it can only refer to the current conditions?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sustain

It suggest as meanings to maintain, to provide, to encourage... In the meaning of provide and maintain there is no limit to current conditions.

I have laid out the conditions under which the world can sustain such a human population. I find it linguistically wrong to limit it in such a way, that only the current situation is permissable. This is directly contradictorary to any use in relation to future like planning.

E.g. "we plan the building to sustain a 6.5 earthquake" would be wrong under your criteria, as neither the building, nor the earthquake exist at the point of that statement..

[-] Simulation6@sopuli.xyz 1 points 8 months ago

I was thinking more in terms of climatic conditions.

[-] soulsource@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago

For context:

Globally, the richest 10% are those with incomes above about $35,000 (£27,000) a year, and the richest 1% are people earning more than about $100,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/sep/21/worlds-richest-1-cause-double-co2-emissions-of-poorest-50-says-oxfam

this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
935 points (94.2% liked)

The memes of the climate

1543 readers
1 users here now

The climate of the memes of the climate!

Planet is on fire!

mod notice: do not hesitate to report abusive comments, I am not always here.

rules:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS