• brrt@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Now you’re just lobbing together people who want to distinguish what exactly it is that needs saving with climate change deniers, conspiracy theorists and antivaxxers. Seems to me you just like boxes, really big boxes, in which to put in all the thing you dislike/disagree with or whatever.

    You don’t care that I disagree with almost everything on your list except for 2 things that I think are really important to be specific about.

    • “Saving the planet”, which I’ve explained
    • ”You drink water, so you’re part of the problem”, which is kind of true if you extrapolate and include it in your decision on if to have children.

    Be my guest, I don’t care enough to continue this conversation beyond this point with a hammer that’s just looking for nails.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      My whole complaint is that “Saving the planet” is intended to be a simple way to bring up the many, many things humans need to change to reverse our destructive path. They’re all implied in that.

      By arguing a million more specific points instead (“well the rocks will still be here”, “actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”) is weakening the purpose of using that phrase. If I wanted to promote water conservation, I wouldn’t say “Let’s save the planet”, I’d say “let’s conserve water”.

      The OP meme is about just that - showing the absurdity of arguing a single aspect of planetary destruction in order to - ?? In order to do what - Promote geological sciences? Dismiss environmental concerns? (This is my main gripe, fwiw.) Be cool and aloof? Scoring internet hot take points?

      It’s all a ridiculous exercise in - well, exactly what we see here: Many comments pointing out obvious - and therefore pointless - exceptions to our species’ unconscionable destruction of the only habitat anyone has ever known. It’s just exhausting.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        “actually, personal water consumption is a factor. . .”

        If one is honest and looks at the data, personal scale water consumption is nearly meaningless.

        Back to the main point though, I do not intend at all to brush off the destruction of habitats capable of supporting complex life but to be clear about the stakes. The world will continue to exist without us - we’re not that special. If we don’t work to stop a handful of sociopaths from rendering the world incapable of supporting human life, we’re screwed.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Can you be more specific about “the world” and “continuing to exist” because in all of these comments it seems like people think it’s easily going to return to some mythical Edenic paradise, just give it a few hundred years, and - no.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Being more specific, I basically mean object permanence. It won’t cease to exist without humans. Even that mythical Edenic paradise is an anthropocentric concept. Nothing like that existed for the majority of the earth’s history, nor did anything like it exist in most regions of the planet. Most known life is optimized for environments that are not particularly human-safe.

            • Optional@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I thought evidence existed that most of the earth was tropical, for lack of a better word, in . . dinosaur . . . times?

              Hey mon, that sounds irie for I an I. Eh, hold the dinosaurs.