• SuperDuper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    That’s a good point, but let me offer this as a counterargument: Mammon demands that we offer up the planet and all living species at the sacrificial altar of capitalism and he shall not be denied

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    While this is technically true, we wouldn’t be such a strain on the ecosystem if we didn’t consume so much per person.

    • funkajunk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m not burning down the amazon so I can make more money on palm oil.

      There is such a thing as “supply and demand” , but consumerist culture originates from the top, not the bottom.

    • Isn’t that exactly what is said? The growth of people x consumption is finite and there needs to be a system change to represent that. It does not specify how the factors are balanced in relation to each other.

  • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    You guys heard of this new one, the growing earth theory? Kinda like flat earth people, these ones believe that the earth is growing from inside and the land mass is expanding but the government, for some reason doesn’t want us to know! Lol

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Because most people just want to live, and not rule. Those that want to rule are not good people. And the authoritarian hierarchy we live under will always have the money, will, and means to hinder any progress made by the majority of the population that just wants to live.

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    I wonder if anywhere in the universe some civilization decided that it’s against their interests to progress through industrial stage because of the environmental impact.

      • gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        To me it was explained in the following way:

        The dharma consists of three parts:

        1. The “dao”, which is the thing that you want to protect. For example your house, your family.

        2. The work that you have to do to fulfill your protection. Like, necessary maintenance on the house, bringing food on the table, caring for your family.

        3. Finally, it is the interaction with the environment. Because your house isn’t the only object in the world, and sooner or later you have to talk to your neighbors.

        I agree that the wikipedia article doesn’t really discuss that, and I guess that there’s different interpretations of the dharma, just like there’s different interpretations of christianity. But that’s how a friend explained it to me, and it makes total sense to me. :-)

        Edit: So the connection is, that in the case of the meme, it is the earth that you want to protect. And to do this, you have to take the appropriate actions, like building your infrastructure around renewable energy, and stuff like this.

    • explodicle@local106.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s a nice coastline you’ve got there. It would be a shame if something more expensive than Pigouvian taxes happened to it.