You and me have zero control of the trolley. In fact, statistically we are among the "billions who must die". Stop wasting your time with philosophical distractions when our lives and futures are at stake now. Let's kill the billionaires reaping obscene profits from destroying the planet first, and see how that goes. After that, if you still feel that the unwashed masses need thinning, I suggest you lead by example.
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
-22 points (27.1% liked)
Asklemmy
49491 readers
589 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
OP, whatever you are on, don't use it ever again. There is no reason to think that torturing and killing kids will solve global warming. In short, it is a useless hypothetical that adds nothing to the discussion about solving the problem. Meaning it useless, while you get to pretend that you are somehow smart. Newsflash: you are not.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Trolley problem is a bullshit in the first place, just as your "what if" nonsense. Millions of innocent children are dying and being tortured already by the capitalism, which is also main cause of global warming.
China isnβt capitalist and is factually the largest contributor by far to global warming across the globe. Sure, the US is second on the list, but after that, itβs quite far down before capitalism appears again.
Capitalism may suck, but it dilutes the water to pin nonsense like this on it when thereβs actual arguments against it that merit real consideration.
China has the most people within its borders. Your logic seems to imply that dividing China into say 10 different states would solve the problem. A much better metric is per capita.
per cApiTa!
- Per capita it's not, by far it's not.
- Ever wondered why it has such emissions? Because it produce literally half of everything produced in the world, for usage of both you and me and everyone else. Sourcing of emissions by consumption make it way worse for west. Why? Capitalism, imperialist countries consume far more.
- Historical emissions. Wow. Even worse picture for the west. They don't get to deindustrialise then whine about China's emissions. Why? Capitalism again.
- Outsourcing production to cheaper countries isn't ecologically friendly move. Capitalism again.
- China is the only country which consistently rolls out ecological initiatives on a systemic level, US dismantle even their own poor as shit regularions and euros set up the emission market and are trading it, pretending it's meaningful. Capitalism again.
lol⦠per capita. Apologia at its finest.
βChina is perfect!β - said the communist.
Wow you managed to make a complete illiterate and bad faith dumbass of yourself in just two sentences. You should repost that to some reddit main, maybe you would get some reward.
Itβs not surprising that a wannabe-communist wouldnβt know what apologia means.
load more comments
(17 replies)
we're already torturing and murdering millions of innocent children in gaza, africa and southeast asia and we're actively enabling climate change to maintain american dominance; is that okay?
Which is ironically undermining American dominance
only because of gaza and even then only because of tiktok. after all: we've been murdering millions of across the entire world to maintain our comfort and none of it got anywhere near as much attention as it does now because of social media platforms that were not controlled by our oligarchy. ie tiktok.
emphasis is "were not controlled" because tiktok is very much under control now.
I have only tortured children as a passenger in an automobile, using flatulance and automatic window locks. I have not murdered anyone. I have never used ticktalk.
It irritates me a lot when people use 'we' and 'our' in contexts that include me, when they do not apply to me.
So to rephrase your first comment in this chain:
The american government, via israeli and other proxy and puppet armies they have created, are already torturing and murdering millions of innocent children in gaza, africa and southeast asia and unchecked capitalist corporations, both american and international, are actively enabling climate change to maintain american military dominance to serve as their shield from the people who resist; is that okay?
The answer is: No.
I have not been comfortable for a long time, figuratively and literally, long before I ever heard about gaza, since before I was considered an adult, a few weeks prior to 9/11.
I have protested in many ways since then, with several years incarcerated because of it.
I have lived an impoverished life by american standards, although not the same level of poverty as other places, by several orders of magnitude for some places.
It is the billionaire kleptocracy that is controlling the country I am trapped in, that is causing climate change. Not me, with my lack of using fossil fuels whenever I had the choice, eating locally grown as much as available, avoiding supporting the worst companies such as big oil and the process and/or fast food complex.
Sorry for the rant. Like I said, I really hate when people say 'we' and it includes me.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Jesse, what the fuck are you talking about???
Not sure, but definitely made a lot of people think
Yeah like "wtf is op on?"
what if the world was made of pudding?
At one hand I'd say : you really need (mental)help
At the other hand .... Global warming is doing just that.
So if it's guaranteed global warming is reversed and not starts over, one could reason it's justified (biggest question, which/who's children is it ghonna be)
load more comments
(1 replies)
If they are going to be living short lives in tortuous conditions thanks to climate change anyways, than yes. Otherwise no.
Could we maybe substitute the children with the one million richest people on the planet?
load more comments
(1 replies)
You don't have to do that.
We donβt need to. We just need to stop letting business interests direct economic priority.
load more comments
(2 replies)
What if we had to torture and murder you to solve global warming? Would that be ok?
Are we witnessing the DNC forming their 2028 presidential platform here in real time? I can't wait to have a bunch of right-wing liberals tell me why murdering millions of kids is absolutely necessary and that I'm obviously a conservative Russian plant for not supporting it.
It's the trolly problem. A classic.
What do you think is the use of trolley problems?
If there is absolutely no other option, yes. Even dropping nukes over the whole earth is okay if that solves a massive long term problem.
load more comments
(8 replies)
view more: next βΊ