▲ 680 ▼ The world's corporations produce so much climate change pollution, it could eat up about 44% of their profits if they had to pay damages for it (phys.org) submitted 2 years ago by silence7@slrpnk.net [M] to c/climate@slrpnk.net 81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Kichae@kbin.social 113 points 2 years ago (3 children) So, they'd still be wildly profitable, then? Huh. permalink fedilink source hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 53 points 2 years ago (3 children) 'Wildly profitable' would not be enough to them. 'Extremely profitable' would not be enough to them. 'Insanely profitable' would not be enough to them. Infinite growth is one hell of a drug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Xariphon@kbin.social 29 points 2 years ago (1 child) See also: any other form of cancer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NightAuthor@beehaw.org 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Infinite growth, until you kill your host. In this case the host is the whole human population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flipht@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, the whole world. Will it recover? Maybe. Life is resilient. But we've already presided over a pretty quick mass extinction that is still ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Neon_Dystopia@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* The only time infinite growth would be possible is if we became a space faring species and colonized other planets. That would allow us to continue population growth. Outside of that, infinite growth is impossible since there’s only so many people on this planet and even less who can afford their products. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jandar_fett@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Capitalism and infinite growth is a microcosm of an organisms drive for infinite growth, which is usually curtailed by all sorts of biological and evolutionsry processes. Like space limitations and scarcity of resources, and I'm trying to figure out what is different between the individuals that form these mega corps and the average organism. I dunno. Is this a stupid train of thought? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Nah, it's a intelligently reasonable argument. The world would be saved if we could be rational like this. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 15 points 2 years ago Yeah it really drives home just how fucking cooked the situation is. Sorry kids the biosphere is fucked and human society is an echo of what it once was but there were some rich people who didn't want to be slightly less rich than they already were. permalink fedilink source parent [–] senoro@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago No. Because some companies would make no profit and others would be unaffected. Who’s going to pay more, Shell or novo nordisk? Shell would simply cease to exist permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Rozauhtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone 53 points 2 years ago (3 children) 'Wildly profitable' would not be enough to them. 'Extremely profitable' would not be enough to them. 'Insanely profitable' would not be enough to them. Infinite growth is one hell of a drug. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Xariphon@kbin.social 29 points 2 years ago (1 child) See also: any other form of cancer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NightAuthor@beehaw.org 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Infinite growth, until you kill your host. In this case the host is the whole human population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flipht@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, the whole world. Will it recover? Maybe. Life is resilient. But we've already presided over a pretty quick mass extinction that is still ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Neon_Dystopia@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* The only time infinite growth would be possible is if we became a space faring species and colonized other planets. That would allow us to continue population growth. Outside of that, infinite growth is impossible since there’s only so many people on this planet and even less who can afford their products. permalink fedilink source parent [–] jandar_fett@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Capitalism and infinite growth is a microcosm of an organisms drive for infinite growth, which is usually curtailed by all sorts of biological and evolutionsry processes. Like space limitations and scarcity of resources, and I'm trying to figure out what is different between the individuals that form these mega corps and the average organism. I dunno. Is this a stupid train of thought? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Nah, it's a intelligently reasonable argument. The world would be saved if we could be rational like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Xariphon@kbin.social 29 points 2 years ago (1 child) See also: any other form of cancer. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] NightAuthor@beehaw.org 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Infinite growth, until you kill your host. In this case the host is the whole human population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flipht@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, the whole world. Will it recover? Maybe. Life is resilient. But we've already presided over a pretty quick mass extinction that is still ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Neon_Dystopia@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NightAuthor@beehaw.org 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Infinite growth, until you kill your host. In this case the host is the whole human population. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] flipht@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, the whole world. Will it recover? Maybe. Life is resilient. But we've already presided over a pretty quick mass extinction that is still ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Neon_Dystopia@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] flipht@kbin.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, the whole world. Will it recover? Maybe. Life is resilient. But we've already presided over a pretty quick mass extinction that is still ongoing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Neon_Dystopia@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Neon_Dystopia@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Enigma@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago* The only time infinite growth would be possible is if we became a space faring species and colonized other planets. That would allow us to continue population growth. Outside of that, infinite growth is impossible since there’s only so many people on this planet and even less who can afford their products. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] jandar_fett@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Capitalism and infinite growth is a microcosm of an organisms drive for infinite growth, which is usually curtailed by all sorts of biological and evolutionsry processes. Like space limitations and scarcity of resources, and I'm trying to figure out what is different between the individuals that form these mega corps and the average organism. I dunno. Is this a stupid train of thought? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Nah, it's a intelligently reasonable argument. The world would be saved if we could be rational like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago Nah, it's a intelligently reasonable argument. The world would be saved if we could be rational like this. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 15 points 2 years ago Yeah it really drives home just how fucking cooked the situation is. Sorry kids the biosphere is fucked and human society is an echo of what it once was but there were some rich people who didn't want to be slightly less rich than they already were. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] senoro@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago No. Because some companies would make no profit and others would be unaffected. Who’s going to pay more, Shell or novo nordisk? Shell would simply cease to exist permalink fedilink source parent