People Twitter

That should not stop you from trying. You, and everyone else in this thread for that matter, just drop excuses. Either you guys finally start removing some billionaires, I'm all for that, or you start doing the little things. Ideally, just do both.

Can the students asking this remove billionaires? (Without going to prison)

No, so whats your point? They want to do something. Telling them to not do things because those things are less significant than other things that could theoretically be done is nihilistic.

Not really. You have to remove the companies that made them a billionaire or they'll just be replaced.

1. Vote for candidates who will do something about climate change

That's the one for removing billionaires.

We need information, math, data that distinguishes between:

A) tragedy of the commons--you doing it yourself won't make a difference, but everyone doing it will, so you doing it yourself makes a difference, and

B) the change is so minuscule that even if everybody in the world did it, it still wouldn't move the needle.

Everything in B should be replaced with "clobber billionaires and coporations and governments", but nothing from A gets misplaced in B.

Mega corporations like nestle get their money from us normal civilians not caring about what we consumes impact on the environment.

Like if you literally disbanded nestle over night, not even splitting them up or selling things off but somehow just got rid of them and all their product's... does the negative impact on the environment go away? or do new companies grow to meet the unmet demand and all that's changed is what company is providing cheap goods at the expense of the environment?

Suggestion #1 (voting for candidates who support pro-environment legislation) results in the sweeping systemic changes that you're looking for.

*consensus on Hexbear

edit: sorry seems to have contaminated this instance as well

Why won't the guvment step in and slap my cheeseburger out of my hands??????

That's a major problem today - "what can I do?" means "where should I post about this?". If it can be done with two thumbs on a phone, today's activists are all over it.

Thoughts and prairs

1. People give this world a meaning. Who cares what happens to the world if there is no one to care.
2. You need children for the next generation to exist. I believe this one is obvious.
3. You need people to solve problems. Our generation may have fucked up. But at least give a next generation a chance. I mean do not multiply like rabbits. But maintaining population is important.
4. You can raise your children, so they will make the change or vote for the people who will make the change.
5. Climate change is not the only problem. And there are a lot of things to consider when you decide on having kids. Even on individual level I believe it is very beautiful thing to give another human being a chance to experience life. Especially if you do not see the world/life only as bad. But the question "Is it morally good to bring the children to this (broken/beautiful) world" is mostly philosophical and IMO boils down to optimistic vs. pessimistic view on the world.

That's not what your source says though.

It says "having one fewer child" is the recommendation that should be given, and logically so

Here in the USA, the overwhelming majority of poor people eat meat; even the homeless! They just get low-quality processed meat instead.

The political advocacy would (in the best case) still end up with a ban on these actions that disproportionately impact the climate so why not just start getting used to tofu already?

This source (1) places completely plant based diet as having 1/3rd the reduction in emmissions of car-free life in US context.

I was under the impression that cargo ships were actually pretty efficient due to their absolutely massive capacity. Compared to things like airplanes, I mean.