/gov/ - Governance

They're organizations entirely driven by the selfishness of the moral high ground. They'll assist in the fall of the west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUB6daSN_6g

That sounds pretty based, OP.

>>1090
That's what happens when a ideology incompatible with capitalism is forced to work within capitalist framework. Most pessimistic view would be that the sole purpose of their existense is to discredit green ideology and funnel activists into inefficent ways of changing the status quo. I tend to think the situation is way more complicated.

In case of the parties Russia stances, I'd imagine they aren't about energy politics. All the green parties are after all first humanitarian, and ecologist second. With this framework most of the perceived contradictions should more or less dissappear.

Not that I would be defending green parties, I just don't thing strawmen are right way to go about criticizing stuff.

>>1091
That dude works for RT right?

No clue because I'm not European. If I had to guess it's probably a puppet used to go "look we're fixing the problem" with out really doing anything.

>How are they this stupid
People give  stupid solutions to   moral conundrums. They just want to fix it even if it's an asinine solution.

>How do we stop rape?
>We should make everyone wear chastity belts!
Bad comparison but you get.

>>1093
You're right. Russia seems more like an extra. The main objective is of course that moral one. It'll only make living conditions worse. Funny how it's only a method to attract votes. Democracy really is a stupid system.

>>1096
Are you in denial or a fatalist?

>>1096
Wait u sound like one of those idiots who think leftists try to make more people poor so they would have voters. Please tell me I'm strawmanning.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (222.7KB, 474x355)

>Usually modern left-leaning
It's critical to emphasize they're usually populist socially progressive, but almost never anti-capitalist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nPVkpWMH9k
ah fuck sommeone already said it but with more words.

>>Cuts funding to the military to fund all of this
Based. Everyone can see the boys in green aren't green. Look at them and tell me they're green.

if they're anything like the American green party, they're starry-eyed progressives who don't have any of the political awareness of leftists.

as an amerimutt my understanding is that euro greens have been at least successful enough to be played out and manipulated as spoilers by other factions due to the inner workings of parliamentary systems and coalition building, while in the usa green party is nothing more then a protest vote and very rarely does it's place on the ballot even factor in most elections. i seem to notice more wingnut libertarian party candidates in the usa being used by democrats to split republican votes then greens being used against democrats, but i can only pay so much attention to those types of things before reaching levels of it's all so tiresome that shouldn't even be possible, so maybe i'm incorrect in that observation? at the end of the day, if i were to vote, maybe i would vote for the pirate party or whatever candidate wore the coolest looking boot on his head, idk. the mummified corpse of john mcafee for commander in chief and vermin supreme as his vp running mate would be a dream ticket for the president of the united states at this point as far as i'm concerned.

>>1090
>What's the point of European "green" parties?
They were created in the 1970s by the KGB to serve Russian interests.  They have never done anything else.

>Soviet military plans invasion of West Germany
>West German "Green Party":  "kick out the Americans!  Get out of NATO!  Cut funding for the Bundeswehr!  We must have more trade with Russia!"

>Germany has energy independence and is sovereign
>German "Green Party":  "Shut down those nuclear plants because nuclear power is bad and scary for reasons we can't articulate!  Buy natural gas from Russia instead, so that they can set our foreign policy for us and tell us what to do!"

The "Greens" have always been Reds, and they've never hidden their love of sucking Russian and Chinese cock everywhere they are, all around the world.  You can always predict exactly what they'll do if you assume they're agents of Russia and China.

>>1102
What kinda weird conspiracy is this?
We live in the modern day, and in the modern day their policies would only harm Russia. They're progressives who hate the anti-degeneracy stance of the Russians.
Globohomo developed in America. Please live in the modern age.

>>1104
idk. i think >>1102 makes a fair point. if you were trying to subvert a foreign government for your own interests, you wouldn't get far by starting up a political party openly announcing such a thing. it would make more sense to co-opt something else. i'm the cabbage that made post >>1101. i don't know enough to know if euro green parties have been a russian false flag since day one, but it would make sense if they were used as such on ocassion.

>They're progressives who hate the anti-degeneracy stance of the Russians.
that would make for good cover, as long as the rest of the platform was backing realpolitik type issues that were of more critical importance to russia or whoever else might want to subvert the greens and use them as spoilers or useful idiots. strange bedfellows in this world at the least.

>>1105
There are plenty of European parties that are openly pro-Russia or at least anti-NATO.

>>1105
It'd be a valid point if it wasn't completely unfounded.
Modern progressive elements in politics date back from the hippie era, which were mostly founded in the USA. These elements are partly what brought down soviet communism as a whole, being followed by glasnost and perestroika.
It's also the case that many modern progressive parties are remnants or follow-ups to parties that were previously communist or socialist in nature.
Life isn't a Simpsons cartoon and the Soviet Union doesn't persist behind a facade of the Russian Federation. The Soviet Union fell due to instability of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, around which the Soviet Union was built.
Although most progressive parties are degenerative in nature for the countries they reside in, this doesn't mean their existence is some sort of KGB plan.
The decline of the west is entirely to blame on the west.
Russia needs stable trading partners to develop itself, which an anti-Russian party would not offer. It's entirely stupid to presume they would kick themselves in the shins by supporting their enemies.
As you stated in >>1101 , coalition building forces these climate agenda issues through. Their implementation would cost billions and be unreliable. Furthermore they would cause the costs of housing to skyrocket, considering every new house needs to be thrice as insulated and have an expensive electrically heated water pump.

>>1098
Progressives win votes by talking about humanitarian issues. I'm not saying they plot to destroy the country they hold parliament in, but that would be the result of their policies. Their policies usually consist of restraining the market to force their ambitions through, such as forcing private companies to do their job a certain way. It has huge implications for the lower classes, who would be as restrained as the markets.

>>1107
>Their policies usually consist of restraining the market to force their ambitions through, such as forcing private companies to do their job a certain way.
Yea and that's a good thing for poor people, since unrestrained markets fucking kill them for profits.

>>1108
No, they're not restraining the corporations who abuse the market, they are abusing the market by forcing those corporations to implement their work in a different way. They will increase their prices as a consequence. In essence it is the government that is increasing the price of housing by forcing corporations to only build them if they are insulated enough.
This is a form of government intervention that is not based on government spending. It's not socialism, it's an endless wave of regulations which force the markets to a standstill, increasing prices.

>>1113
Is there any real world evidence that lifting regulations would bring the prices down without sacrificing the living quality? As I know less regulated areas have their apartment blocks growing mold and in extreme cases just collapse way more often, and in reality not even be that much cheaper for the common folk, since wages tend to go down hand in hand with regulations.

>>1114
Once you've set regulations you've moved the price up.
Once you remove the regulations you leave it to the market to bring the price down again. This is why implementing wrong/bad regulations has lasting consequences.
Regulating for quality is fine, punishing for bad quality is better. Capitalist countries dislike punishing corporations (as they are lobbied by them) and as such do not often do so. Implementing regulations on corporations that do not benefit the customer are bad for the customer.

>>1116
Yea so corporations are untouchable because they hold the whole populations as hostage and will punish them everytime. Since submitting and just hoping that the corporation doesn't hurt us is obviously dumb, we need tactics to fight back. Regulations clearly hurt corporations since they punish people for them, so throwing them out as a tactic would be short-sighted

>>1119
It is as you say. Corporations are however not untouchable, just very much untouched. You'd need a bold leader to push aside lobby interests.

>>1122
Replacing the lobby interests with the interests of the bold leader rarely works out well for anyone involved. Like yea saddam was cool for not playing along with the global system but he was also a massive gaping asshole. I don't find such a solution reasonable, not for the risk, nor the reward

>>1124
There are many forms of corruption, some in favor of economic gain, some prefer power.
It's tough to make that choice, but when it's to avoid becoming a puppet state, it's sometimes okay to prefer your own corruption above that of your hegemon.

>>1128
False dilemma. Choice isn't who you want to be ruled by, it is whether or not you should be ruled. Any revolution that requires a leader is a fake revolution.

>>1130
You must be a big fan of the zapatista.

>>1131
They have a leader no? I just buy my coffee from them and we don't discuss politics much.

>>1090
>"green" parties?
They are like a fnord to be honest. The so-called green parties are not really green, but instead they want more consumerism and paint it in green so they don't feel bad.  Pentti Linkola wanted to throw them out from the boat. Also, please read https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fc-industrial-society-and-its-future

>>1133
Another example. Greens want more tech because they love it. Richard MOTHER FUCKING Stallman wrote about computers that you don't own (rather the computers of the future own you and you are a "used" and not an user) and Ted Kaczynski wrote about technological slavery. While I don't agree with Ted's methods or all opinions of Stallman, I think they had the right point here.

>>1134
Unabomber was pretty cringe tho.

Like yeah industrialism is shit boo hoo but there is like no way to go back so stop dreaming. Even if we burn all of the shit down some fucker in a bunker will have a book about how to make cars or starbucks and we are in it once again.

Critical Support for Alex Jones in his noble struggle against globalist hegemonism!.mp4
[Hide] (4.2MB, 852x480)

>>1131
No, but I am. Because I'm a TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT. WAKE THE FUCK UP AMERIGA.

>>1134
Green parties are inherently populist and reformist platform, and 'we want to take away your shiny iPhone and home computers' isn't going to bring many to your side. So even if their members were anti-tech overall, they would lose most of their votes if they were hardline enough to be actually eco-[x].

>>1136
Having an anti-comms tech party would be like having an anti-gun army. There is no hypocrisy in using the available tools. The problem is they use said tools to promote capitalism with green thumb and the only green capitalism has ever stood for is the sweet sweet dolla.

>>1132
"leader" is not the same as "ruler".
There are many leaders who do not rule and there are many rulers who do not lead.
>>1114
>Is there any real world evidence that lifting regulations would bring the prices down without sacrificing the living quality?
depends on the regulation. For instance regulations on electronic equipment ensure you don't risk fiery death every time you turn on your PC. Building codes are another good example where it is obvious that the improved quality you get from the regulations far outweighs the slightly increased price. Another example is fast food. It is commonly believed that raising the minimum wage would increase the cost of food, but consider a shop with five or six workers that's open 12 hours a day. Such a shop can easily get pull in $5,000 a day if it's in a shitty location. An increase of wages from $11 an hour to $15 an hour results in an increase of around $30 a day to the operating costs. So they raise the average cost of food by 00.6%, nothing in comparison to the impact of the wage increase on their employees. The only reason why a raised minimum wage would cause significant inflation, in this example, is that the company will realize they *can* charge more for their food, and since everything is a race to the bottom, they *will*. This is the same reason why landlords hike up rent, btw.
However catalytic converters are required in all US cars and are actually less efficient and more expensive than Japanese designs, but they had to scrap it to sell cars to Americans. It's not hard to find other examples of regulations that are created by and for corporations to fight against other corporations and do nothing but hurt us.
>>1116
>Once you've set regulations you've moved the price up.
Not always by a significant amount.

>>1138
shit I did my math wrong, just multiply all the percentages by 10.

>>1138
>>1139
I guess even 6% raise would be justifiable when you take into the account the 36% increase in wages for the poorest folks. But yea people not benefitting for the raise would be sure to complain.

>>1104
The "populist" Green Party in Germany is always for more immigration, less industry, more replacement of the nation's founding stock.  "Green Parties" are a symptom of globohomo.  Globohomo crawled out of a sewer in Frankfurt in 1929 and its creators and most fanatical adherents made up the German governments on both sides during the occupation for 45 years.  Globohomo in the US is the result of our "intellectuals" declaring whatever Europeans do to be "stylish" and spent almost a century aping them.  Now they can't contain their enormous admiration for China and their ability to "get things done," but at the root it's all the same Clown World ethnomasochism and self-hatred.

>>1141
This sounds like americaposting

>>1142
Americaposts are spam, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong.
Competing superpowers like Russia and China have their own huge issues, but at least they're not self-destructive in nature.

>>1143
If your position is that trying to prevent climate catastrophe (albeit poorly) and taking in immigrants is self-destruction you've been smoking some bad herbs.

>>1144
How is it not self-destructive?
How does a climate agenda support a country economically or militarily?
How do refugees and money-seeking immigrants help a country?
Implementing climate regulations to save humanity is absolutely self-destructive if you're the only one doing it, the same way it is destructive to invest in knitting while your country is at war.

>>1143
 The apparent "destruction" of western world is just class warfare and you happen to be in the recieving end. Mental health crisis, no job security, birthrates and whatever can be easily explained by the fact that our value as human beings is currently plummenting. Only cream of the crop picked from the chools, with best work motivation, values and skills need picked to keep the system running while the rest can be left to survive as they may. Same design is behind immigration, from among them the best are chosen and the rest just forgotten, and need to make ends meet in an hostile environment.

Killing you isn't self-destruction, this is how western society functions and has functioned since the ancient history. You aren't a cog in the Machine, you are just fuel.

>>1145
>How is it not self-destructive?
Cuz western countries still hold all the wealth and power and there's no signs of that changing.

How does a climate agenda support a country economically or militarily?
It isn't supposed to, how does elderly care support a country militarily and economically? You are stuck in some strange gamer worldview where everything countries do is supposed to be about "winning" whatever that means. Does not losing most of your population, govermental ability, and eventually your autonomy since the weird weather patterns fucked up your food supply count as "winning"?

>How do refugees and money-seeking immigrants help a country?
Again it is a humanitarian thing  You wouldn't get it.

>Implementing climate regulations to save humanity is absolutely self-destructive if you're the only one doing it
Yea and that's why everyone should be doing it and freeloaders nuked.

>the same way it is destructive to invest in knitting while your country is at war.
What war? Did i miss the ww3 happening?

In conclusion you seem like a selfish prick with no clue about empathy or how to cooperate and you are projecting it on nations. You should probably bite on your anal prolapse and roll the fuck off from the adult conversation.

>>1147
>Cuz western countries still hold all the wealth and power and there's no signs of that changing.
This is a superiority complex. China has more purchasing power parity than the United States. The west is losing power. Its regime change policies have failed.
>how does elderly care support a country militarily and economically?
People aren't robots, and want to take care of their people. Extending this care to the rest of the world will only crush your soul. You can't feed every person. Care for yourself and your family first.
>Does not losing most of your population, govermental ability, and eventually your autonomy since the weird weather patterns fucked up your food supply count as "winning"?
The climate crisis cannot be overcome. Not as a single country. Not if everyone else doesn't do it. There is no point.
>it is a humanitarian thing
A horrible thing to invest in. Stop caring about everyone. Nobody cares back.
>Yea and that's why everyone should be doing it and freeloaders nuked.
Oh you're going to nuke everyone.
Bet that's real green. Very good for the environment. Good job.

>>1145
>How does a climate agenda support a country economically or militarily?
By preventing massive famines in 10-20 years.

>>1149
How? Spell that scenario out.

>>1148
>This is a superiority complex… blah blah
Have you noticed how USA still keeps power projecting around the world while China and Russia can barely reach their backyards without getting punished? China is doing good as one country but the network of alliances the west has still got the situation pretty much in it's own hand. Where you think all that stuff from china was shipped to? Who got the stuff?

>Boo hoo caring is hard all my energy goes into loving my dad who beats me
Nah, you are totally a robot repeating old tired and incorrect talking points. I can easily care about people who aren't my blood relatives without my soul getting crushed. Who says you can't feed every person? There is certainly enough food and money for it. We live in a global, interconnected world where karma is gonna bite you in the ass real fast when you neglect people outside your own family.

>annoying doomerism point
Yea so you'd rather not even try, you fucking genius. In addition you are actively arguing against coming up with an agreement where everyone would try to work together. You are just repeating some local rightwing nuts speech who is just trying to "put your country first" by signing a suicide pact. We got those here too, its a global movement of idiots fed by oil money.

>>1148
>People are shit investment
Next you are evoking a racist stereotype where everyone except white leftist strawman is incapable of appreciating being helped out, in addition to claiming that only reason to help people would be some reward rather than it being the right thing to do. You must be a terrible friend without knowing it.

>Oh you're going to nuke everyone.
Yes, with the actual nukes I have in my garage. In other more peaceful option we just lynch you and all other agitators screeching about muh self-interest for the interests of oil barons. You know it's really hard to find a peaceful solution when you seem not only commited to die horribly but to take everyone else with you. Fuck you and everyone you love.

(Btw can we up the max length for posts?)

>>1145
>How does a climate agenda support a country
It supports multi-national businesses and continuous growth. They use it market new stuff. This is why they don't want to talk about other environmental issues, like toxic waste.

>>1153
I'm so annoyed when every time in the middle of their speech a green party politician takes a bottle of deodorant and starts going on about its health benefits.

>>1151
>Where you think all that stuff from china was shipped to? Who got the stuff?
Where do you think the USA imported all their stuff from? Where do you think the factories are located? Where American businesses have moved their factories to? It's China.
America may have friends in western Europe, but its recent political developments is making more enemies than friends. China owns Africa now. China is friends with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, North Korea. All states that are focusing on their own strength, rather than on humanitarian issues. They are more prepared than the West is. The west can't even get its NATO allies to reach the required 2% gdp military investment.
>Who says you can't feed every person?
Logic does. People have to feed themselves first. Don't feed the seagulls, it creates a dependent population.
>>annoying doomerism point
It's doomerism to invest in a dead end. There is no point if only western Europe implements climate regulations. The climate crisis will happen whether you tried to stop it or not, because other people didn't. It's a suicide pact to invest in this.
>you are evoking a racist stereotype where everyone except white leftist strawman is incapable of appreciating being helped out
This is so fucking insane I don't think I'll bother replying to it.
>we just lynch you and all other agitators screeching about muh self-interest for the interests of oil barons.
Nuking over half the planet's population and irradiating the entire eastern hemosphere to save the planet.
Since mutually assured destruction still exists, why aren't you supporting policies to support a post-climate-disaster world instead? Rather than trying to keep the inevitable threat away, why not invest in boats? Floating bunkers? What's the point pursuing something that is doomed to fail?

>>1155
Well go on and move to China if you think you got a better chance in there. Germany uses 3 times more to military than to foreign aid, and it's a country surrounded by its allies. Also you are using "the west" when meaning "america", which is just dumb, could you stop.

Logic says that if you count the amount of food produced yearly, and amound of food required by the population yearly there is more than enough. You rather throw tons of food to the actual seagulls rather than people describe as such. The system creates dependent populations all the time, usually not even saving their lives in the process.

>>1155
You solution to the problem seems to be to stockpile weapons and fight over the ruins. You know that those weapon systems china and friends are investing in are very much dependent on global trade network to keep functioning?

Lynching you isn't nuking the planet wtf dude?

>>1150
you really need it spelled out? More extreme weather events means farms are less productive on average. One huge drought and you're unable to feed your populace for a year or have to buy it from elsewhere. See how well that goes over for your national security.

>>1153
indeed, it seems that only disorganized activists care about things like land over-development, which is as bad or worse than climate change and also actively contributes to it. But it can't be easily measured or gamed like carbon emissions so nobody bothers trying to deal with it on the policy level.
Plus people like to blame climate change for wildfires but most wildfires (I think 4/5 in California) are started by idiot humans who don't know fire safety.

>>1155
>All states that are focusing on their own strength, rather than on humanitarian issues.
Also all weak states that are basically dependent on allies to avoid being invaded. Also wondering why you think Afghanistan is "allies" with China, they're very soon to become conquered.
>>Who says you can't feed every person?
>Logic does. People have to feed themselves first.
Non sequitur. Just because people must feed themselves first does not imply that they cannot then feed others.
>Don't feed the seagulls, it creates a dependent population.
Nobody feeds seagulls willingly, the seagulls just fight over our trash.
>It's doomerism to invest in a dead end. There is no point if only western Europe implements climate regulations. The climate crisis will happen whether you tried to stop it or not, because other people didn't.
It's not doomerism to invest in ways to avoid disastrous flooding, or to invest in new farming techniques, or to modify the city layout so you don't use up so much precious gasoline just keeping the country running. Not to mention that if the EU met its current goals (and if the US had any) it would actually do quite a lot to stop climate change.

Anyway, it is better not to contribute to a disaster even if you can't prevent it. Every little bit just makes it worse.
>why aren't you supporting policies to support a post-climate-disaster world instead?
You can do both, you know. In fact I think the majority of policies aimed at surviving a climate disaster would also be effective at lessening the climate disaster and vice-versa.

>>1156
feeding the world is a whole different topic altogether from climate change really. Though just as useless.
>>1157
>weapon systems dependent on global trade
What am i reading lol
>Lynching you isn't nuking the planet wtf dude?
I thought you wanted to nuke those who don't reduce pollution, which are china and russia.

>>1159
I think it'd be kinda cool if the world goes to shit tbh
I've never met a climate activists that owns a fishing boat, but whatever.

>>1160
>I think it'd be kinda cool if the world goes to shit tbh
Everyone thinks that until they're actually affected by it. Ask a Somalian what they think about the cyberpunk lifestyle.
>I've never met a climate activists that owns a fishing boat, but whatever.
Overfishing is a thing too. At current rates of consumption, most fish that people eat will be extinct in the wild in a few decades. In the US they already have to breed trout and then put them into various lakes and ponds so people can fish them.

>>1161
Woah
dude
so
the world is gonna flood
and there's no fish in that flood?
And everyone's gonna die and we can't do anything about it?
Think you've just turned me into a serial rapist, mr doomsday cult guy. Who cares what happens if the world is fucked anyway?

>>1162
>And everyone's gonna die and we can't do anything about it?
shut the fuck up, the point is that there is a *lot* we can do about it, but dumb shit like trying to escape and live innawoods isn't one of them.
Although, if you mean in the more existential sense that everyone will die eventually, yes there is nothing you can do about it.
>Who cares what happens if the world is fucked anyway?
You're on Erischan and you're just having this epiphany now? Next you'll tell me you discovered this amazing philosopher Nietzsche who found out that actually you can have a meaningful life even when it doesn't really matter.

>>1162
Well that's certainly a mentally stable adult's response to the situation.

>>1163
Lifting a 10000kg rock by yourself while the rest sits around makes a world of difference.
>>1164
Nuking the world is very mentally stable too

>>1165
>Lifting a 10000kg rock by yourself while the rest sits around makes a world of difference.
Yeah, much better to sit around and masturbate about how much smarter you are for not trying.

>>1166
Unironically, yes.

>>1160
>feeding the world is a whole different topic altogether from climate change really. Though just as useless.

It's a same category of a problem where we could just solve it if we agreed to but we don't.

>>1167
well, have fun getting rugburn on your dick little fella, there's plenty of Eris porn to go around. Meanwhile those of us who would rather do something are gonna go do it.

>>1165
>what about that comment you made as a hyberbole 30 posts up, who looks dumb now huh?

>>1169
Good luck lifting the stone. This is a sisyphus-esque task where the boulder can't even be pushed upwards.
>>1168
Why should we agree to do it? Make a new thread about it if it really clamps your heart.

>>1170
It says enough. You will never entertain global support for your plans. Even if you do, they won't carry it out. That's what China does atm.

>>1171
Ok done

>>1171
>This is a sisyphus-esque task where the boulder can't even be pushed upwards.
that describes love, attainment of enlightenment, ethical behavior, creation of art, studying esoterica or science, etc.
Pretty much anything worth doing is impossible to "complete".

>>1172
For what reason do you think china and russia are so willing to die rather than helping with the lifeboat?

>>1176
You can't unite all of humanity to do one thing.
Hippie ideals sound beautiful but sorry, there will always be outliers.
>>1177
Because there is no indication they have stopped mining and shoveling coal, despite what they have said.

Untitled_2.png
[Hide] (444.6KB, 1301x732)

>wow you're such a doomer! You should be like me and decide that all action is pointless because the world is shit anyway. All this doomer stuff about how "it is possible to create a better world" is just so heavy man!

>>1182
Attempting to lift a rock you can't lift is indeed pointless. Thanks for pointing it out.
Calling someone out for not having enough faith in a doomed premise is stupid

>>1177
>Because there is no indication they have stopped mining and shoveling coal, despite what they have said

What? I asked why don't they wanna stop when it's clearly not good for them in the long run.

>>1183
Suddenly there's a notion that making climate a bit better is somehow impossible. Cool rhetoric, where you bought it?

>>1184
It's probably because they don't believe the climate crisis is as bad as believed in the west.
The west is America, Western Europe and Oceania btw. Sorry if you didn't get that earlier.

>>1187
Lmao implementing regulations to stop pollution in the west isn't gonna make the consequences of climate change any less worse. That's not how it works.

>>1190
Love the indepth explanation here. I never knew that nothing happens if you do stuff because stuff doesn't work like that. An absolute gem.

>>1195
You never even gave an example of what would happen in the case of a crimate crisis.
If you don't burn the coal, someone else will. The endtimes aren't gonna be any less worse just because a few did not sin.

>>1197
>if you dont stick this dragon dildo up your ass somebody else will.
What has been scientifically proven to happen in primate crisis is that everyone will go apeshit and start flinging poop at each other. Giving them weapons is not optimal.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (586.4KB, 966x1200)

>>1200

>>1197
>If you don't burn the coal, someone else will.
Not if it's more expensive than not burning coal. Or if it's illegal.

>>1183
*whoosh*
I was pointing out that you have been endorsing a doomer attitude this entire thread. "Doomer" doesn't mean somebody who thinks the apocalypse is coming, it means somebody who has given up on life.

ZENTACULAR.jpg
[Hide] (84.5KB, 474x659)

>>1183
>Attempting to lift a rock you can't lift is indeed pointless.
No it isn't. It can demonstrate the option and purpose of lifting to encourage other, who with their help, can enable the rock to levitate.

>>1204
I'm not talking about a person. I'm talking about a country.
>>1205
People have been talking about a climate crisis for decades now. Whatever happens happens. I'd rather give up on this boring ass life than work myself up over doomsday.
>>1207
You forget that the others believe the rock is entirely fictional and made up in your head.

003c95e98b8d652c.jpg
[Hide] (64.2KB, 723x503)

>>1208
>You forget that the others believe the rock is entirely fictional and made up in your head.
you do know that there are these things called religions where people have managed to convince others that entirely fictional entities made up in their heads exist, that those entities are angry and need appeasement, and that unless people do a certain thing that those entities will smite them? It's true! It turns out that it literally doesn't matter whether something is real or not, you can still convince people to do something about it, even if they don't currently believe in it now!
Now, I know this all might be a shock to your system. I too was amazed and alarmed when I realized that people sometimes start believing things they did not believe previously. After all, that has never happened to me. I have never once in my life taken in new information and used it to synthesize new beliefs about the state of the world, especially not beliefs which I had previously thought were lies. So of course, like you, when I discovered this it didn't change any of my existing beliefs, so I must have already known it. Funny how that works. Anyway, there's this book called the Principia Discordia about a bunch of idiots going around calling themselves popes. You should really read it, it will absolutely not change any of your beliefs at all because people like you and me, we never change our beliefs.
>I'd rather give up on this boring ass life
ok doomer

>>1209
I'd rather be a doomer than a doomsday cultist lol
Try to convince anyone you like. Not everyone will drink the kool-aid.
China may say whatever they want, but as long as they continue polluting then it doesn't matter what anyone else does.

>>1210
That's the spirit! Don't be a doomsday cultist, be a doomsday solipsist! Doomsday is inevitable anyway, but also it's not happening and anybody who thinks it is is an idiot (source: I'm not dead yet), so why should you hang out with a bunch of other cultists? Where's the fun in wearing robes and performing rites? I hear the kool-aid doesn't even have acid in it. BOOOOORING

>>1209
>people have managed to convince others that entirely fictional entities made up in their heads exist
People should believe in things that aren't true. How else could they become?
But I admit, a lot of boring things like gouverments, economy and and rectangles came to existence that way.

>>1211
I want to wear robes and perform rites with other cultists, but they never call me to hang out. I'm not even sure they know my number.

>>1220
If you put your robe on and do jumping jacks 30 minutes from this post you'd be joining your fellow popes in a ritual.