this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
450 points (100.0% liked)

solarpunk memes

3791 readers
246 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (12 children)

The image is, if you read left to right and top to bottom, moving backwards in time.

I'm not asking why things got to the point they are at today. I'm asking how someone can just populate an image about the ocean hundreds of years ago off of pure vibes.

There is no science behind just adding more animals to increase the fauna/flora density by entirely subjective amounts here. And I can say that it isn't just meant to show an increase because specific years are used, as well as 3 data ponts, so the density of animals in question is the point.


The wish-fulfillment, because we're moving back in time, is that the ocean was that full of life all those years ago. Unless backed by evidence. Which no one has presented so far.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago (11 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (10 children)

So you feel good about downvoting someone for rightfully pointing out a lack of evidence, then sending a link to an entire book review which might or might not even show evidence of the thing I was asking for?

LMFAO.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago

Dude, you said show "proof" and he showed proof. Dunno what you are complaining about. How was he supposed to prove anything without linking to an external source?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)