I mean, in this theoretical situation it would. Ignoring the fact that it’s metaphorical, it’s sort of like saying we shouldn’t build windmills or nuclear power plants because the construction produces co2
I mean, in this theoretical situation it would. Ignoring the fact that it’s metaphorical, it’s sort of like saying we shouldn’t build windmills or nuclear power plants because the construction produces co2
blarghly@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I mean… maybe burning everything down would mitigate climate change. But the collapse of global supply chains would lead to billions losing access to sufficient food, clean drinking water, internet, electricity/modern heating, medicine, etc. We would see mass migrations, war, famine, disease, and ecological devastation, all on a scale never before seen in the history of humanity. Ie, all the things we are trying to stop climate change in order to avoid.
witten@lemmy.world 4 months ago
blarghly@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I mean, I 100% agree with you that there are other, better options. But those other, better options aren’t represented with a molotov.