*Fewer humans, and that would actually solve most of our problems, it’s just that we need to be more specific about which humans we get rid of. Specifically billionaires/unchecked capitalists.
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.
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 🙄🙄🙄
*Fewer humans, and that would actually solve most of our problems, it’s just that we need to be more specific about which humans we get rid of. Specifically billionaires/unchecked capitalists.
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.
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.
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.
Sarcasm is dead and .ml killed it.
Deadpan sarcasm doesn’t translate well from a verbal medium to a written medium.
Unless you’re in an echo chamber…
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.
Your username should have given me a clue
Cope
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 🙄🙄🙄