Well, no, wandering off into the woods is the biggest personal offset you can make.
And there’s a whole range between that and being a vegan anti-natalist, and once you get into calculating your impact on others the whole equation changes
This isn’t a problem that can be solved personally, it doesn’t make sense to look at it like that
Like say you blow up an oil rig or tanker… Congrats, you just made huge a carbon footprint.
Now say oil equipment gains a habit of being sabotaged, consistently. If it’s one person, It’s a problem for law enforcement. If it’s a consistent thing, fossil fuels have just become more expensive to produce statistically
Or, you know, we could pass a tax or regulate them properly
Regardless, my point is that climate change is a systematic problem, thinking of it in terms of individual action is already flawed
that’s a narrow definition that doesn’t really encompass all the ways in which eugenics has been practiced. frequently, as i have done here, it is used synonymously with genocide. stop practicing genocide.
Right, but from a “carbon footprint” perspective, making new humans is the worst thing a human could do for their footprint. What we need to get away from is the argument that our individual carbon footprints are too high. I mean, they are, but the ruling class is a lot more egregious.
Not having children is the most impactful individual change one can make, well over going vegan.
Becoming a vegan anti-natalist is the most impact a person can make.
I am uncertain of the numbers regarding both individually. You might be right.
Personally, I think both are important.
Well, no, wandering off into the woods is the biggest personal offset you can make.
And there’s a whole range between that and being a vegan anti-natalist, and once you get into calculating your impact on others the whole equation changes
This isn’t a problem that can be solved personally, it doesn’t make sense to look at it like that
what about destroying fossil fuel extraction or transportation projects?
Well that’s not really personal anymore.
Like say you blow up an oil rig or tanker… Congrats, you just made huge a carbon footprint.
Now say oil equipment gains a habit of being sabotaged, consistently. If it’s one person, It’s a problem for law enforcement. If it’s a consistent thing, fossil fuels have just become more expensive to produce statistically
Or, you know, we could pass a tax or regulate them properly
Regardless, my point is that climate change is a systematic problem, thinking of it in terms of individual action is already flawed
That’s not really a change that an individual can make. Either you already have them or you don’t.
It’s a choice you can make
this is eugenicist propaganda. also, going vegan has no impact at all.
No it is not. Eugenics is an attempt to improve the genetic quality of a human population.
We are talking about an attempt to stop climate change. We are not trying to “improve” the genetics of human population.
Eugenics sounds good at first, but human greed and corruption makes it an incredibly dangerous tool that should probably not be in the hands of anyone
I don’t think eugenics sounds good.
I’ve heard too many people (mostly elderly) speak out for it. It’s definitely a bad idea
that’s a narrow definition that doesn’t really encompass all the ways in which eugenics has been practiced. frequently, as i have done here, it is used synonymously with genocide. stop practicing genocide.
No. Genocide is murdering people. Genocide is violence against people. Forcing people, against their will to stop existing.
Asking people to reproduce less is asking people (not forcing them) to exercise their own will.
genocide is also propaganda that encourages one segment of the population to cease reproduction.
that is true, but eugenics is something very different
in this case, it’s a synonymous use. they are totally equivalent in this respect.
those are the trappings, but the method is bare eugenics
No it is not. Eugenics is a pseudo-science about improvement of genetics. Period.
Trying to avoid climate catastrophe is not about improving genetics.
no, it’s not, even the wikipedia article we both love disputes this claim plainly.
if the method by which you try to avoid it is eugenicist, then it is.
I’m done.
I am not into bickering for no reason.
i didn’t ask you to say anything in the first place.
Then what do you suggest? Thanos?
i suggest we figure out a way to maintain the habitability of the planet without eugenics.
Right, but from a “carbon footprint” perspective, making new humans is the worst thing a human could do for their footprint. What we need to get away from is the argument that our individual carbon footprints are too high. I mean, they are, but the ruling class is a lot more egregious.
this is actual eugenicist propaganda. you should stop spreading it.
No it is not. It has nothing to do with eugenics. Nothing at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#Meanings_and_types
as i mentioned in the other subthread, eugenics is often used synonymously with genocide, which is the meaning i was connoting.
Genocide is not being suggested.
Genocide is against the other’s will.
I am not suggesting any kind of violence.