That’s humans. Those are human constructs.
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
790 points (94.1% liked)
Flippanarchy
2624 readers
638 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's animals. Those are animal constructs. Animals are causing climate change.
Don’t confuse can’t with don’t. People are people.
The idea of infinite progression.
But all humans are destroying* the planet, whether Amazonians or Africans or billionaires.
Every one of those people require land for agriculture or hunting, all of them use natural resources and will until they are expended, all of them have children that exponentially increase the demand on everything we all need (or want).
Billionaires are much more harmful than many thousands and more, it is true... but examples are legion of regular old proles destroying the environment around them once their population reaches a certain level (this varies depending on the local environment).
The simpler/more primitive the society, the less stressors they put on the environment, but they remain stressors regardless.
*By destroy I mean to make it inhospitable for people as we know them, planet will be fine long after we are all gone.
It's because of the way we live. The capitalist/consumerist lifestyle is not very sustaiable because it burns trough resources too quickly. We could absolutely reengineer our civilization to be more eco-centric but that would hurt the billionaires.
A decentralized network of aquaponics systems could provide everyone with food. Cod houses are free of toxic chemicals. Vehicles that use compressed air in place of gas exist. Food can be cooked with solar cookers. Mechanical computing is a thing. And PCB boards can be made out of clay.
*By destroy I mean to make it inhospitable for people as we know them, planet will be fine long after we are all gone.
What if theres a new humanlike species after we are gone? They would not have the same knowledge as we do and could recreate the same, if not even worse results (especially if they rediscover our nukes) We made so much social progress, we cant just give that up now.
literally nobody thought that was the case. this is just holier-than-thou fartsmellery.
"Humans are destroying the planet" has been a great way of off-loading the social responsibility aspect from multi-billion dollar gas guzzling AI-generated farts factory to Grandma, who forgot to put out her recycling last week.
the prefix "some" is implicit there. but also, like, the hundreds of millions of people commuting to work is a bigger problem than the thousands of people driving loud sports cars. it's just that the hundreds of container ships going around the world is a way bigger problem still.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I do agree that this is very rare take from climate activists. Those folks usually know their shit and are pretty radical.
However, this line of reasoning is definitely a thing among laypersons. It has historical precedent that has its roots in Malthusian population theory.
load more comments
(1 replies)
are you sure about that? the "oh, humans are so evil, we’re destroying our planet! i wish all humans were dead" sentiment is extremely common
yeah that's called ecofascism. it's about as well thought through an ideology as anarchocapitalism.
i mean, it has its roots in how we discuss climate change. we call it "human-made", so yes, people will jump to "humanity is to blame for climate change". it’s a very logical leap, and not entirely wrong, even if it doesn’t tell the whole story (which part of humanity is responsible?)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Unfortunately the misanthropic sentiment is the foundation for a whole plethora of ecofascist tendencies, both intentionally and unintentionally so, that are shockingly common.
For climate activists it's very unlikely, but there are people who believe Africans are the issue because of high birth rates, conveniently ignoring that richer countries do the most damage by far.
Did someone fucking print this tweet out and then scan it?
It was so good that I faxed it to myself at work.
"How do I install this tweet!?" - some grandma still using AOL dialup
load more comments
(1 replies)
Right!? Why is it slightly askew?
Neither is the average human being anywhere, just trying to survive a hostile narcissistic environment they have no control over
Rich people are destroying the planet. It's nobody else's fault.
load more comments
(13 replies)
In general I just get frustrated with the human slander. No. We're not all evil assholes. We're not stupid. We're a bunch of animals that managed to break out of the normal fight for survival primarily by working together. This all only works because we help each other most of the time. And stupid? Why? Because we don't all individually understand the massively complex world we've created for ourselves?
The bad people and things that happen are bad because they're exceptional. They break from the norm and aren't representative of the whole of the human experience. It really sucks that some psychos can take advantage of our behaviors to get us to do awful stuff, but the solution to that isn't "Woe is me, humans are just bad. Maybe we should all just go away." Are their victims bad? Do they not deserve to be saved because their oppressors are evil?
You can't really have any social progress before you recognize that "we can do this" and "we are worth it." Otherwise what would be the point?
We're basically monkey's with nukes.
I know right? Thats like saying all dogs are evil because police dogs attack protestors
This enemy classification includes the settler/colonialist workers in the Amazon who are working as the frontier of capital accumulation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't know man. I know some of those kids in Africa, and they don't all prioritize the environment over things like food and shelter.
For sure, but when we total up the list of top contributors, they're nowhere near the top. So let them, because they're not "the cause".
load more comments
(6 replies)
Yeah, libs have been slipping on the eco-fascism like a pair of custom-made shoes.
Its easy to criticize, but when you ask for a solution, they've got nothing. Literally zero.
Except for a large scale die off of humanity.
something something, the planet can only support 1 billion
As if 80% population loss is somehow a solution
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›