Oh, so the whole global instability is ok, because you personally live in a region that is “blessed”?
So let me ask you this: can we also say that there is no housing shortage anywhere in the world, just because if you ask a few millionaires, they can’t see a problem for them personally?
No, there is no upper limit to suffering.
If one person has been killed in a fire, that’s bad. If the fire killed two people, that’s worse. If it killed 100 people, that’s even worse.
There is no magical point where you say “Oh, there are 42 people that we could rescue, but we won’t, because 600 people have been killed already and that somehow makes the rescue pointless”.
If we can reduce suffering by just a bit, and delay the worst just a bit, then it’s worth it.
Sure, a few measurements from a small number of tiny, unimportant islands are going to prove that climate change isn’t real, or whatever.
Anyway, why do you think they’re talking about political Europe, not geographical Europe?
When exactly has XR splashed paint across art works? Across meaningless glass in front of art works - yes. But when was it art works? (Also: was that XR? I can’t remember exactly, but I very much doubt it.)
Who on Earth glued themselves to trains? That’s even more absurd of you to say.
Let me guess, to reduce murder rates we should also have less children! After all, they might turn out to be murderers.
Any person remotely willing to not have children in order to protect the climate was not a big problem for the climate anyway.
Any person who doesn’t care slightest about the climate, and would never look at the debate we’re having, is a much bigger problem.
So it’s best to be a bad example? Why wouldn’t people then say “If very rich nations can’t even do it, then poorer nation surely can’t”, and suddenly nobody is doing anything?
Also: If you’re a developing country, why would you try to buy technology from 50 or 100 years ago? Why wouldn’t you buy low-cost technology of 2023, e. g. solar power? I don’t see the rock-solid connection that you are assuming.
Also: are you saying “developing countries might, in the future, emit lots of CO2” is an excuse for the current worst polluters to just continue? Would you accept it if I’m a serial robber and used the excuse “I expect a large number of poor people will commit a lot more robberies very soon”?
A few years ago, FFF were dangerous, lazy idiots blind to reality who just want to skip school and who scare people unnecessarily.
FFF today is often portrayed as moderate and reasonable.
Why the change? Does FFF now seem acceptable because they are relatively quiet and marginalized and clearly no threat to the status quo?
Suppose theoretically, FFF held the same large, constant demonstrations as they did a few years ago. Suppose they looked like they could actually influence politics. Wouldn’t they again be seen as suspicious and impossible to support for decent reasonable people?
Support may have halved, but I can think of several possible reasons.
Maybe people decided it’s a lost cause, we’re on the sinking ship, and why not enjoy it while it lasts.
Maybe people realized that they would actually have to take moderate cuts, instead of just talking, doing little, and continuing as always (electing conservatives and neoliberals).
Maybe people fell for “Bild-Zeitung”'s campaigns (“a fraction of heating systems need to be changed out, with government financial assistance, by the year 2044” being portrayed as basically “the Green minister wants to forbid you from heating your home, starting next year”).
Maybe support wasn’t that sincere if it collapses that easily.
Maybe the last 3 years are not that different from the last 30 years. The rhetoric “please please think of how your children will live” in the last 30 years has impressed about 1 in 5 persons, but not more. 4 out of 5 just don’t care.
Maybe the surveys only got support because they presented the issue as “you won’t have to do or pay anything or have any inconvenience”.
Etc.
Extinction Rebellion doesn’t glue themselves to the road. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
They have e. g. put banners on public art works in the city, being very careful that they attach them in a non-damaging, easily reversible way. (They were called dangerous and radical for that.)
Hä? 100% der gesetzlichen Rente ist eine staatliche Sozialleistung, finanziert durch die Gesellschaft. Wie kommst du auf 20%?
Ist doch egal ob der Staat dich verpflichtet einen Teil deines Einkommens in die Rentenversicherung einzuzahlen, oder ob der Staat dich verpflichtet Steuern zu zahlen, von denen dann einiges Geld in die Rentenversicherung fließt. Das kommt ja wohl aufs Selbe raus, abgesehen von Details.
PayPal nutzt bei mir Lastschrift. Hast du das anders eingestellt? Ich würde dem nie meine Konto-Zugangsdaten geben.
Sofortüberweisung und Klarna nutze ich deshalb nicht, Coinbase kenne ich nicht.
Und in diesen Staaten kriegen die Psychiater dann auch 12.000 Euro Strafe und 200.000 Euro Schadensersatz?
Oder gibt’s doch kleine feine Unterschiede zwischen diesem Fall und dem Quatsch, mit dem du ankommst?
Wieso konsequenzfrei? 12.000 Euro Strafe, 200.000 Euro Schadensersatz.
Das heißt nicht, dass von Anfang an alles in Ordnung gewesen wäre, oder dass die CDU die Reichen fair behandeln würde. Aber es gab am Ende eben doch eine Stelle, die einem Aspekt des Treibens Einhalt geboten hat.
So totalitär wie in der NS-Zeit ist es nicht.
You’re fully entitled to your opinion, but we have to agree that your opinion is wrong.
It’s as if you said your cat has seven legs. Yes you might be fully convinced of that, and sadly you might be able to impress some people with it, and it may make you feel special, give you comfort or whatever. But it’s also wrong. You don’t actually have a cat with seven legs. That’s important as well.