• 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    There were fewer humans a century ago. and there were no human caused ecological crisis back then.

    it isn’t the number of people really, but the exploitative economic system they use.

    /s!!! /s!!!

    btw, humans managed the extinction of megafauna when where were around a million humans 10 thousand years ago.

    • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      There were also infinitely fewer people concerned about humans’ ecological impact and no effective way to change that. Now we have millions and millions of people all over the world worried about it and we are all interconnected via the internet. We caused a mass extinction with a million of us in disparate tribes, just imagine what we could accomplish if all 8 billion of us actually worked together toward changing the world for the better! Unfortunately we’re still stuck in stupid tribes, and the most powerful tribe that controls every aspect of life in every other tribe is obsessed with destroying the Earth at a never-ending, ever-increasing pace. Here in America, our ruling class is literally trying to bring about the apocalypse. But naw, getting rid of them couldn’t possibly lead to any kind of benefit, we better let them burn it all down in the name of line-go-up 🙄🙄🙄

    • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      No human caused ecological crises during the height of industrialization? Sure bud.

      Go check on the Aral Sea to get an idea of what a non-exploitative economic system can do.

      • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        sorry. I’ll take all the responsibility of forgetting the “/s”.

        thought it was clearly sarcasm, because duh.

        carry on.

        was trying to make it a clearly obvious point against that argument.

          • mrbutterscotch@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            I honestly believe that the more extreme .ml users will be chasing off new users coming to the fediverse, since they have the largest communities.

            Which is a shame.

          • MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            3 days ago

            Deadpan sarcasm doesn’t translate well from a verbal medium to a written medium.

            Unless you’re in an echo chamber…

            • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              3 days ago

              wouldn’t say echochambers are immune, maybe communities where users know each other. like if anyone who knew me read it, they would immediately realize it’s sarcasm. but without any context, sarcasm is indistinguishable from a stupid idea.

              wonder how many times I’ve agreed with a nazi, because he was being sarcastic and I didn’t realize.