You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-2 points

If we’re assuming that humanity will go extinct, then sure there’s no point to stonehenge. But then there’s also no point to a protest either.

If we’re assuming humanity isn’t going extinct, then there is a point to preserving stonehenge and there’s also a point to having these protests.

Seems like there’s a logic fail happening here where there’s no point to preserving stone henge for the future but there is still a point to a protest about preserving things for the future.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah but protesting has a lot better odds at improving that future than Stonehenge I’d argud

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There’s zero chance that protesting Stonehenge will improve the future, they’re just rocks.

Protesting an oil refinery might have better odds tho.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Zero change is pretty damn impressive confidence intervals, and oil refineries are much easier to cover things up/rewrite the story at

permalink
report
parent
reply

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

!climate@slrpnk.net

Create post

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

Community stats

  • 4.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.8K

    Posts

  • 31K

    Comments

Community moderators