[bsedlm]

> I hold unto my right as a mammal to be inefficient and sit drooling looking at trees.

yes, I even like framing this as an environmental conservation activity.

I'm doing nothing at all (only consuming oxygen, no content, no nothing) as a conscious action to save the environment.

[Robotbeat]

I don’t want to guilt anyone here, but just sitting there and consuming oxygen and therefore calories is a significant environmental impact. Feeding humans, especially fresh fruits and vegetables or meat, has a pretty large environmental impact. (Staples like grains and such don’t because they’re storable and calorie-dense on a per-acre metric.)

And humans can have a positive impact on the environment. We can plant trees, do civil engineering to shore up damaged ecosystems, care for animals, develop cleaner ways to live and make food, etc. humans do not have to be a net negative for the environment.

Which isn’t to say that resting and daydreaming are bad or net negative. I think they’re good! Even if just good for the soul, that helps fight the encroaching nihilism of modern life and think more in a positive-sum manner.

[gunfighthacksaw]

> Staples like grains and such don’t because they’re storable and calorie-dense on a per-acre metric.

So you’re saying that I should have some potato chips on hand for when I’m being lazy? You seem wise.

[jokethrowaway]

At which point does an animal goes from being part of the environment to have its diet analysed for "environmental impact"?

[bsedlm]

reminds me of church of euthanasia's "save the planet kill yourself" from the older internet.

the point is that it's the least we can consume, in contrast with a more capitalist friendly "go sit at a cafe to buy a drink" or even a scholarly-ambitious "read a book, or newspaper or learn something, don't just sit there". both of which are much worse.

[Robotbeat]

But that just wastes the big climate impact that was invested to grow you to adulthood. Now is the time to reinvest in the Earth. Humans can definitely have a net-negative carbon footprint if they work at it.

[jokethrowaway]

That's a very human centric way of framing the issue.

There is no environment that need saving. Carbon emissions are merely changing the environment in a way that may not be convenient for a lot of humans.

You're just saving the status quo of human society, not "reinvesting in the Earth".

If by environment you mean species of animals you should worry more about plastic and trash than carbon emissions.

[Robotbeat]

But, like, I’m a human? Morals are a human thing (or a mammalian thing maybe), heck written WORDS are definitely a human centric thing. How could I not be human centric?

[tylersmith]

I think his point is that instead of minimizing consumption you should aim to actually produce something and not just drain "minimal" resources sitting around day dreaming.