Well first off there are about 190 governments vs that one that had 1.
Comment on [deleted]
heeplr@feddit.de 9 months ago
That’s exactly one of the premises in this paper.
Some say, the easter island model doesn’t scale worldwide but I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 9 months ago
heeplr@feddit.de 9 months ago
wouldn’t make that consent even harder? or imply wars?
e.g. Brazil. Imagine they got the last lumber on earth, they’d have to choose between preserving their last trees and incredibly wealth by selling it. I can’t imagine a poor country to choose the former.
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Thailand has been making bank regulating Teak wood.
PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I agree that it would scale. If you think of it as oligarchs and corporate CEOs=kings, it tracks. It’s tough because the older generations have a lot of people trying to save the planet, but they have and had no power either. You can live like we’re doomed and do your part or live your best life and do your part. Maybe the younger generations will have the power to make change, I hope the older generations vote for the good ones.
heeplr@feddit.de 9 months ago
I don’t believe a CEO or King is necessary for short sighted action. Humans are just very bad at sustainable long-term decisions.
I know a guy who owns a small forrest and when wood prices were skyrocketing due to supply chain disruption, he was tempted to sell more wood than planned. So he couldn’t sell as much in the following years. He has no boss, is not rich and makes his own decisions.
It’s a simple mechanism of supply and demand. I can’t see a reason why people wouldn’t cut down more trees that can grow back when demand is ultra high, other than force/legislation. And then people get angry because they won’t realize that they’d destroy their own business in the long run. A worldwide life-threatening situation won’t change that.