naught101

joined 6 months ago
[–] naught101 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Well, to increase the education of women in those countries (and poor areas of developed nations).

[–] naught101 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What does the "just" in your sentence mean then?

[–] naught101 1 points 2 weeks ago

Farming livestock is less than 6% of greenhouse emissions globally: https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector . and that include dairy and wool.

[–] naught101 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

If you're poor you have a lot less responsibility for the problem. Wealthy and middle class people a) almost certainly have a higher historical impact (in some cases by being part of the systemic cause), and b) have more time and security and resources with which they can push for change. And therefore have an ethical responsibility to act, IMO

[–] naught101 2 points 2 weeks ago

I guess that's what it means now

[–] naught101 3 points 2 weeks ago

As an anarchist, I too would prefer Nobody for president.

(But given current practical realities, I hope enough of you Americans cote dem to keep the fascists out)

[–] naught101 4 points 3 weeks ago

I don't know how you'd measure driving "goodness", but I expect the distribution would be something like exponential (there are billions of non-drivers, and only a few rally/stunt drivers). So the average is likely to be higher than the median.

[–] naught101 5 points 3 weeks ago

This is hilarious

[–] naught101 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

After you answer the same question

[–] naught101 3 points 3 weeks ago

Yep. The thing I worry about is, even if the dems pull of a win that gives them the power to do this, would they actually do it? I doubt it, somehow.

[–] naught101 3 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

As someone who is politically active in ways other than voting, I'm calling bullshit. You're just making assumptions about how other people act, you have no evidence.

view more: ‹ prev next ›