Uh, you got a source on that 1 in 5 number? Not saying it's wrong, but that's a pretty bold claim.
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
155 points (97.0% liked)
Flippanarchy
2562 readers
507 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
holy fuck
This is why I say it's good when gas prices rise and become less affordable. Yes, having less access to fuel harms people but it's hard to believe that harm is more than the harm of burning fossil fuels.
Capitalism burns trough resources too quickly. We should be conserving that oil until we have local food production for everyone
If you're talking about a total cessation of oil then yeah probably. But I think we could get by on a lot less than we do now, so if it gradually ramped down that would be a clear win for most people.
Actually, do you have links for all, would be really nice to have evidence to back myself up next time I have to speak to a stupid climate change denier.
In hindsight, I should have attached those right away
They found an average decline of 0.045 milligrams per liter per decade, with 78.8% of rivers in the dataset showing signs of deoxygenation.
Wildly different from the given claim. There is nothing in the article that suggest 80% of rivers are currently experiencing hypoxia.
This kind of posting invites doomerism.
I am the ~~joker~~ government baby
1 in 5 human deaths. If you compare it to total deaths humans cause it is minuscule. We kill 3 trillion animals a year (mostly for pleasure) vs the 4 million human deaths from fossil fuels.