• HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
    11·
    2 hours ago

    There was capitalism in the 17th century. How about blaming the massive consumption of 8 billion people?

  • matlag@sh.itjust.works
    51·
    14 hours ago

    They’re not desperate. Their system still works and trickle money up.

    What they’re doing is preparing you to make monthly payments for air breezing plans.

  • minorkeys@sh.itjust.works
    8·
    19 hours ago

    We’re barely capitalist, it’s all scheming and legal privileges and crime at this point. Even capitalism requires an adherence to a ruleset and the rulers we have do not like following any rules.

  • twopi@lemmy.caEnglish
    323·
    1 day ago

    Nothing. Humans evolved with plants to complete the carbon cycle. Fossil fuels did not evolve, they are burned.

    • tpyo@lemmy.world
      151·
      1 day ago

      I quoted an article already but here’s another:

      we humans are a significant contributor to global warming. But, in reality, the CO2 we’re breathing out is part of a natural cycle, by which our bodies convert carbohydrates from CO2-absorbing plants into energy, plus water and CO2. As such, we’re not adding any extra CO2.

      which fully supports your statement

      • jnod4@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        2 hours ago

        So human breathing is net zero because we’re just emitting carbon dioxide trapped in the food we just planted?

  • tpyo@lemmy.world
    26·
    1 day ago

    To be fair, it is a number I would be curious about because I just want to know. So I looked up the article:

    https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/how-much-does-human-breathing-contribute-to-climate-change

    be mad; read headlines; parrot social media; here’s another quote:

    In contrast, burning fossil fuels like coal releases CO2 which has been locked up for millions of years, producing a net contribution to global warming.

    The article is literally blaming capitalism

    • MurrayL@lemmy.worldEnglish
      18·
      1 day ago

      Even more important context, right at the top of the article:

      Asked by: Peter Thatcher, Lancaster

      This was a response to a reader-submitted question to a science magazine.

      Everyone raging in the comments here has just blindly read the headline and the deliberately-misleading social post attached, and they’ve decided to be mad instead of using even an ounce of critical thinking. Drives me crazy how much people seem to want to be angry.

      • Mucki@feddit.org
        5·
        22 hours ago

        Thanks. Keep up the dissecting. It is an important tool to lift the “ragefull” propagandistic discussions back to a reasonable exchange of facts and opinions.

  • 𝙈𝙞𝙖@quokk.auEnglish
    291·
    1 day ago

    No, no they have a point. I feel like if we stopped say roughly 3,428 people from breathing that the world would start to heal.

  • blackberry28@sh.itjust.works
    171·
    1 day ago

    Millenials and Gen Z are helping to combat this problem by having fewer kids. And yet, Billionaires complain about that, too. Lol.

    • FiniteBanjo@feddit.onlineEnglish
      21·
      1 day ago

      Well, the only way to “get rid of the rich” is the widespread disbursement of wealth, so actually no.

    • kingofras@lemmy.world
      111·
      1 day ago

      Not to mention while peddling population reduction propaganda on the platform of the dude that had so many kids he had to start labeling them with serial numbers and coincidentally wants to colonise another (uninhabitable) planet.

      • FiniteBanjo@feddit.onlineEnglish
        82·
        1 day ago

        Doesn’t appear to be population control propaganda, he’s saying Capitalism bad. How he defines Capitalism isn’t clear, could be anything from /[non-state controlled manufacturing] to /[the west], or if they’re particularly misinformed they could be using it synonymously with loose regulation, corruption, and monopoly.