• averyminya@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It is both. If every individual does a harmful practice, that is 8 billion individuals contributing to pollution. Hence why we should aim to mitigate on our side.

    At the same time, you and I can mitigate our entire lives and still put out less than the corporations and other individuals who care less, but it still is contributing.

    I don’t think we should be militant about it, just mindful. We should be militant towards corporate pollution, and mindful of our own consumption.

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Is blowing up an automobile factory good? Or is that too militant? How do I guage the correct degree of militantness? I don’t know how to make nitroglycerin… maybe I can snag some bourgeoisie’s heart meds and make a cursed stew out of it.

      • averyminya@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s the sort of question that requires distinguishing the amount of pollution you would make versus the thing you are blowing up. It may factor in if they will rebuild it and continue, or if they would not rebuild.

        I would hazard a guess that in the majority of circumstances, blowing up a polluting company would be less pollutive than said company is, except for if they were to rebuild (since I would consider the resources for rebuild a necessity since you blew them up).

        This is not an endorsement to explode anything, this is simply an analysis of factors about factories and their ecological terrorism.

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It was only a jest. Blowing up a factory would be, you know, bad. If people were in it.