• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    59 months ago

    if we assume

    Wrongly, though. The average westerner even does not pollute enough to make a difference, but the rich and the corpos do make all of the difference. Taylor swift pollutes more per year than I ever could even if I tried in my lifetime.

    On the other hand the population lowering, anti-civ, anti-industry, an-prim and eco-fash arguments are just eugenics because a lot of disabled, neurodivergent and queer people rely on those things

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -7
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I have no clue why you’re now bringing up eugenics. Like WTF! Where the hell did I write anything even remotely related to that? Or anything against queer folks?

      And just because the richest people are by far the worst polluters doesn’t invalidate my argument at all. If the overall number of humans changes over time, that also impacts the number of the super rich. If we have 10 billion humans instead of 8, there will be more rich people, more middle class and more people suffering from poverty.

      On top of that more people mean more natural ressources have to be consumed for heating, agriculture, transportation etc.

      We definitely should change society in a way that the super polluters are held accountable for their damage but that doesn’t mean that this is the only relevant figure and the only thing that helps.

      A slowly shrinking humanity has definitely a better ecological impact than a growing one. And as long as that happens without external force, that’s a positive thing for me.