you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 20 hours ago (5 children)

And in order to fight climate change, we gotta end about four hundred dudes. It’s doable, there’s billions of us.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

    It's a lot more complicated than just getting rid of a couple hundred people.

    Getting rid of the people won't get rid of the systemic structures that put them there. If we don't dismantle those, new people will just take the place of the old and nothing will fundamentally change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 22 minutes ago

    No no, killing the CEO of BP will suddenly make you car run on unicorns and your heating work on good vibes.

    We don't need public transport, investment in green energy and a reduction in our consumption. We need to kill a few guys, that's all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 13 hours ago (1 child)

    Interesting thought experiment though: How many new people taking the place of the old ones would have to face lethal consequences before people stopped taking control of those systemic structures?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 13 hours ago

    Let us assume that it is a constant percentage. That is, that for each new person who takes up the mantle, there is a specific and defined chance that they will abuse their position. In that case, then we might imagine that, with a starting count of x and a chance of c, the next "generation" will have x×c number of people who abuse their position. Then, in the generation after that, x×c².

    We can notice that this is a simple sum of a geometric sequence, where the total sum is defined as S = a / (1-r), where a is the initial value and r is the rate of change.

    If we assume that a is 400 people and r is 50 percent (0.5), then you will need to displace 800 people in total

  • source
  • parent