• Godort@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, shrinking the population would absolutely help assuming that you shrunk it enough.

    It’s hard to destroy an environment when the destroyers dont exist.

    • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, or we could just ban super yachts, private jets, cruise ships and empower those indigenous communities who have had such meaningful successes to spread their ideas and understanding so that we can begin to develop a sustainable culture, and we don’t need to kill half the worlds population.

      • LucyLastic@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        ¿por que no los dos?

        Also, not half the population, more like 99.9% of it. Start with the richest first, and work your way down.

        • BartsBigBugBag@lemmy.tfOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, were you paying attention? The answer to why not is because it’s eco-fascist rhetoric and I’m not an eco-fash.

    • IninewCrow@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It would be more efficient if we shrunk the power of the wealthiest individuals and made everyone fall under a wealthy limit

      Why should one person own and control so much wealth when they will never realistically be able to enjoy all of that wealth during their lifetime? Especially if that one person hoarding all that wealth they’ll never use is producing, creating and maintaining so much pollution for one individual.