Controversial opinion: The world’s problem is too many humans. We should impose a global 1 child policy for 2-3 generations to give us time to figure out a sustainable way to expand as a race.
It's not that. We can already feed everyone in the world, it's just not profitable to do so.
And the above comic doesn't show overpopulation. It shows a terrible urbanization and surburbanization scheme. There's a lot of things we could mandate to make it better.
Underground telephone and power lines. Also prevents outages during storms. Gets rid of a lot of the upper noise.
Better lights. Prevents light pollution by having most light go downward.
Structure cities and town centers around walking. This means fewer roads and parking lots and more restaurants and stores.
Increase public transport. #3 means everyone will drive TO the city then walk. This will prevent the driving to.
More green spaces. Within cities and towns there should be a lot more vegetation. Corner green spaces, rooftop gardens, parks, etc.
Denser housing in cities. This means people can go up instead of out. Prevents urban sprawl and keeps city neighborhoods walkable.
There's probably a lot more but a big problem with American design is that it was almost all co-opted by the automobile industry 100-150 years ago. We used to have public transport within and to cities. But their lobbying created mostly sprawling suburban hellscapes like you see above. And all the rich people live in beautifully manicured neighborhoods so they care nothing for how it looks.
The main problem I see is that news outlets, people, and link aggregators like Lemmy/Kbin, mainly focus on the negative side instead of the positive said.
For example, focusing on the negative side would be "Climate change is here and we are doomed". Focusing on the positve side would be "These are the things you can do to alleviate climate change". Climate change is the main topic in both information sources, but changing the focus means better discussions, less ragebait and doombait, and a healthier environment for all of us.
Linking to news outlets won't change that, because we all know how they work. But I agree with OP, ragebait doesn't benefit anyone and only harms our mental health.
Unsubscribing or blocking communities/magazines is something that we can do, but that also prevents us to read other kind of news that are posted on those communities/magazines.
"These are the things you can do to alleviate climate change" That's still negative. It's blaming climate change on people instead of corporations and governments, a trend started by bp
Gotta love the heteronormativity on this post. Why fuck the mother? Why not go back in time and fuck Hitler and make him fall in love with me? All hail homo-hitler!
and i don’t just mean “because it’s google and google is an ad company”. what specifically is it sending to some internet server that firefox doesn’t? both the firefox and address bars send what you type into them to a search provider. as near as i can tell, firefox’s committment to privacy is to say “we protect your privacy” while doing all the same stuff that chrome does.
Firefox blocks a bunch of tracking by default. Chrome requires the user to take action to prevent that tracking. I also recall Chrome leaking hardware UUIDs some years back when Chromium did not meaning Google added code to cause that. I think that has been fixed for awhile since I don’t immediately find info about it.
I’d almost take a repost of an actual meme over another comic strip, twitter screenshot, or plain old picture… This community is already dumpster fire.
Genuine question: Do you think there’s more fear in 1) people who refuse to acknowledge reality because doing so requires questioning their lifestyle, or 2) people willing to confront environmental threats?
lemmy.world
Top