You're viewing a single thread.
It would require SO MUCH KILLING! Like more than you realize. Because there's massive organizations like the world bank, OPEC, various families leading various countries across the world, the council on foreign relations, so many think tanks, oil rig workers, fracking magnates, all the people under all these people (so their underlings don't just take command), even this is just the tip of the iceberg.
How many people perpetuate the global oil industry? Methane? Air travel? Petroleum based plastics? High CO2 emissions industries?
We'd probably surpass the Holocaust pretty quickly. It would be more than one person could handle. More than could be done in a life time.
This is also why climate change likely won't be ended within our lifetimes, if at all. We don't understand that it's so embedded in modernity. I contributing to the problem just writing this, as you are reading it.
EDIT apparently some readers are having trouble realizing this is written as a thought-experiment about the forces that perpetuate climate change, and instead think it's a viable plan for a leftist revolution. It's not. I'm not recommending actual actions or political preferences here. Obviously mass killings like these would be a kind of fascism.
Why on Earth do you think a leftist revolution requires exterminating workers in problematic industries? Your doomer nihilism isn't founded on logic.
Because it makes it easier for those still comfortable enough in the status quo to dismiss revolutionary action, and keeps them safe and secure in the idea they've been indoctrinated with that "the system might not be perfect but it's the best we've got".
Because there's this thing Professor John Mearsheimer calls "The Blob" - which are all the forces of the status quo outside the US as the sole Super Power that keep neoliberal economics constrainted to a certain set of practices, a certain kind of lifestyle, a certain kind of military conflict in the world, in certain locations.
The Blob and the US are usually in agreement, but sometimes in conflict. Tackling industries head on is likely easier than going up against The Blob which can likely throw whole arms of modern, well equip, western soldiers at you.
Workers would just be easier to kill. They have less guns and less combat training.
So your argument is for some sort of eco-fascism, not Leftism, and you're arguing against Leftists as though they are eco-fascists? This is nonsense.
Son you've got the kind of internet addiction which means you mistake commentary on a scenario defined by a cartoon, as someone's genuine political views and opinions.
I'm outlining the pragmatics of the cartoons claims as a thought-experiment, not expressing my genuine political views.
Of course I'm not about to go massacre workers in the name of climate change. Hence me saying it would be impossible to do in one lifetime with the given tool - an AK.
I'm doing this because it's interesting to discuss the higher echelons and geopolitical structures that maintain the status quo of things like Capitalism, Geopolitics, and Climate Change.
But no, no massacres of workers today comerade.
First of all, drop the condescending smug attitude, that's incredibly rude.
Second of all, you are positing that a Leftist revolution would target that which it relies on for support. This doesn't "add to discussion," it misdirects it.
No, defensiveness and the need to make everything into a head on an personal argument - like you're showing deserves to be made fun of.
To that end, I'll note, in this scenario I'm not being backed by the revolution workers of the world, nor am I attempting an uprising in the name of their revolution.
In THIS SCENARIO - I'm ending climate, and I'm backed by a A MAGICAL FUCKING GENIE.
Maybe get your head out of your arse, and stop treating everyone as if they must conform to your perfect political standards and mandatory need for debate. You fascist.
Beware I'm backed by a genie. He'll probably gove me wishes too.
Don't be so serious. Don't attack people of you're bot willing to listen to what their saying and have an ear for their intentions.
I don't give a shit about the argument you want to have. I started this as a thought-experiment inspired by a cartoon. You can take your attempted persecution of me elsewhere. I ain't playing that game.
Nor is the magical genie whose backing me in using an Ak, to end climate change. Which is the point of the post.
Arguably a bullet in nearly any human is the most cost effective solution per ton of CO2.
Sure, I supposes in the same way a bullet is the most cost effective remedy for headaches. Just one round and they'll never have one again.
Right, cost effective should not be construed to be good.
Yeah, it's certainly not a downside, but there's lots of context where when considered in a vacuum it can be misleading.
All I am hearing is we need numbers and to start soon.