Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Everyone else could have voted for regulation to prevent them from doing those things. You can’t just expect corporations to not do evil if you allow them to. They’re heavily incentivized by the system to be as evil as possible. The solution is to limit the amount of evil they’re allowed to do.
Money isn’t real. The government isn’t real. Those two things are made real by belief. Everyone made a choice to believe in those two things.
If you spent the 80s working for communist orgs then you’re not guilty, but everyone else who did nothing during Reagan and Thatcher deserves the hate.
I lived in a socialist state (GDR) as a small child (and my parents all their lifes until the state disolved). The government destroyed nature just as much, if not more.
And the CCP actively denied climate change as a means for the West to stop their modernization until the last decade or so.
Industrialization was a priority for most Marxist-Leninist based states because that was considered the best means of both defending themselves from the “NATO aggression” and, in theory, increasing quality of life.
It’s a relatively recent trend that ecological conservationism and climate action has become a major actual leftist talking point. Obviously you could find individuals who were concerned but the governments are largely M-L and simply didn’t care that much compared to building industry.
It didn’t exist yet. I don’t believe that petroleum fuel existed at the same time as any independent communist society, which contradicts your claims. If you would like to support your claim that some communist civilisation used petroleum, it seems to me you should name a communist society which maintained independence after the industrial revolution.
That article lists it as a mosquito repellant and a salve, not as a fuel. I was careful to use the phrase “petroleum fuel”. Oil as a mosquito repellant doesn’t contribute to global warming.
In democracies people have the option to vote for people who will regulate businesses. A business will only optimize for profit, if you want them to make environmentally friendly choices you must either make those choices mandatory or profitable. The way to do that is through politics, and people who voted for the avalanche share the blame for it.
But snowflakes literally aren’t responsible for an avalanache. A cow in a stampede has no choice but to follow the herd, it’s the whoever or whatever started the stampede/avalanche that’s responsible.
Except for cows at the edge and back, who could get out.
Which makes a new edge of the herd, which lets more cows out, and all of a sudden the stampede is just one angry bull.
No metaphor is perfect, but I think this one demonstrates rather handily that much of the “stampede” is social pressure that would dissipate rapidly if the people who could leave it did.
I wish people would see it that way. But on Lemmy when it comes to climate change the majority seems to be in favour of not doing anything personally, because it wouldn’t have lot of an impact.
Making jokes about how not using plastic straws is a scam, a vegan diet too hard for the effect it has or how the cars of individuals don’t matter in the greater scheme…
That’s exactly like people in past generations thought as well.
The thing that causes an avalanche, the loud noise or whatever it was.
You could try and blame the snowflake for being there, but even if that was a valid criticism it would only give them limited responsibility for the avalanche happening. Blaming the snowflake is like blaming tinder for the fire, when without the spark no fire would have happened.
Thinking a bit more though, I was only thinking of a snowflake in the avalanche, rather than a snowflake falling on the top causing everything to fall down - like messing up the last card in a house of cards. If that’s what they meant then it makes a little more sense, but still doesn’t really hold true. 90% of all avalanche disasters are triggered by humans.
An avalanche requires that certain types of snowflake form a “weak layer” in the snow. Some snowflakes are kind of smooth on the sides, these don’t have the jagged edges that hook onto other snowflakes. When a force is applied, this weak layer breaks and the snow on top of the layer slides down the slope. A single snowflake will not apply enough force to break the weak layer - the amount of force it applies would be negligible even compared to things like the wind. Something else will trigger the avalanche before a snowflake ever could.
The snowflake provides the conditions for an avalanche, but doesn’t apply the force that triggers it.
No snowflake thinks they’re responsible for the avalanche
Except it literally is the fault of like 30 people. We can directly pinpoint the cause of the problem onto the actions of specific individuals.
Everyone else could have voted for regulation to prevent them from doing those things. You can’t just expect corporations to not do evil if you allow them to. They’re heavily incentivized by the system to be as evil as possible. The solution is to limit the amount of evil they’re allowed to do.
Money isn’t real. The government isn’t real. Those two things are made real by belief. Everyone made a choice to believe in those two things.
If you spent the 80s working for communist orgs then you’re not guilty, but everyone else who did nothing during Reagan and Thatcher deserves the hate.
I lived in a socialist state (GDR) as a small child (and my parents all their lifes until the state disolved). The government destroyed nature just as much, if not more.
And the CCP actively denied climate change as a means for the West to stop their modernization until the last decade or so.
Industrialization was a priority for most Marxist-Leninist based states because that was considered the best means of both defending themselves from the “NATO aggression” and, in theory, increasing quality of life.
It’s a relatively recent trend that ecological conservationism and climate action has become a major actual leftist talking point. Obviously you could find individuals who were concerned but the governments are largely M-L and simply didn’t care that much compared to building industry.
That has no bearing on what I said.
Communism isn’t a magic wand to excuse blame.
Grow up and realise communist countries extract and burn petroleum.
The Haudenosaunee did not use petroleum.
How common was petroleum fuel at that time?
It didn’t exist yet. I don’t believe that petroleum fuel existed at the same time as any independent communist society, which contradicts your claims. If you would like to support your claim that some communist civilisation used petroleum, it seems to me you should name a communist society which maintained independence after the industrial revolution.
So, you might want to look into oil seeps as well.
You went and found the one indigenous group that actually did have access to petroleum. https://stacker.com/business-economy/history-oil-america
Not an exhaustive argument, but really points out a flaw in yours
That article lists it as a mosquito repellant and a salve, not as a fuel. I was careful to use the phrase “petroleum fuel”. Oil as a mosquito repellant doesn’t contribute to global warming.
We may have made that choice, but there are some pretty sure consequences if you don’t go along at least a teeny bit.
No but snowflakes are arguably more equal in their role and function than humans in society are. Powerless people exist, and it’s most people.
In democracies people have the option to vote for people who will regulate businesses. A business will only optimize for profit, if you want them to make environmentally friendly choices you must either make those choices mandatory or profitable. The way to do that is through politics, and people who voted for the avalanche share the blame for it.
But snowflakes literally aren’t responsible for an avalanache. A cow in a stampede has no choice but to follow the herd, it’s the whoever or whatever started the stampede/avalanche that’s responsible.
Except for cows at the edge and back, who could get out.
Which makes a new edge of the herd, which lets more cows out, and all of a sudden the stampede is just one angry bull.
No metaphor is perfect, but I think this one demonstrates rather handily that much of the “stampede” is social pressure that would dissipate rapidly if the people who could leave it did.
I wish people would see it that way. But on Lemmy when it comes to climate change the majority seems to be in favour of not doing anything personally, because it wouldn’t have lot of an impact.
Making jokes about how not using plastic straws is a scam, a vegan diet too hard for the effect it has or how the cars of individuals don’t matter in the greater scheme…
That’s exactly like people in past generations thought as well.
If snowflakes aren’t responsible for an avalanche then what is?
The thing that causes an avalanche, the loud noise or whatever it was.
You could try and blame the snowflake for being there, but even if that was a valid criticism it would only give them limited responsibility for the avalanche happening. Blaming the snowflake is like blaming tinder for the fire, when without the spark no fire would have happened.
An avalanche cannot occur without an outside force acting upon it?
Yes, something needs to trigger it.
Thinking a bit more though, I was only thinking of a snowflake in the avalanche, rather than a snowflake falling on the top causing everything to fall down - like messing up the last card in a house of cards. If that’s what they meant then it makes a little more sense, but still doesn’t really hold true. 90% of all avalanche disasters are triggered by humans.
An avalanche requires that certain types of snowflake form a “weak layer” in the snow. Some snowflakes are kind of smooth on the sides, these don’t have the jagged edges that hook onto other snowflakes. When a force is applied, this weak layer breaks and the snow on top of the layer slides down the slope. A single snowflake will not apply enough force to break the weak layer - the amount of force it applies would be negligible even compared to things like the wind. Something else will trigger the avalanche before a snowflake ever could.
The snowflake provides the conditions for an avalanche, but doesn’t apply the force that triggers it.
That’s because they literally aren’t.