Comment

What do you find hyperbolic about this? In fact, it’s not even the first time it would happen. Why aren’t there Dodo birds, or California red legged frogs? Why are we concerned about Blue fin tuna or sustainable seafood at all? We have a long history of humans deciding something is good and too many of us eat it, build on it, over fish it etc… How would land lording be any different or hyperbolic?

source

Sort:hotnew top

oo1@lemmings.world ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

it’s a pointless statement to say if everyone did anything

I was agreeing with this part, except that I think OP statement was ‘hyperbolic’ not ‘pointless’; an exageration for rhetorical effect.

What I think is pointless is taking hyperbole (and most rhetoric) at face value and arguing about it. It is better to try to determine the underlying point being made (there probably is one if you look hard enough or enquire about it) and think about some more realistic scenarios.

I don’t think the original point was about <hyperbole> the vulnerability of the economy of mauritius due to overconcentration of the dodo industry </hyperbole>; or, the sustainability of a street entirely owned by landlords. Maybe someone wants to <hyperbole> make some Ronald Coase type speculation about how property rights could have saved the dodo </hyperbole>.

source
- Joncash2@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  Well, it’s not hyperbolic because as I’ve said, sadly in life we’ve seen humans over consume far too many times.
  
  I mean the best example I can give is climate change. It’s very clear our over consumption of oils is destroying our environment. But humanities reaction thus far has shown to basically call it an exaggeration and ignore the problem. If keep saying human over consumption is hyperbolic, that’s how we get president Trump.
  
  source