It’s not about if the object damages the environment, the point they’re making is that society is ready to spend fortunes preserving old objects while everything around them is going to shit. We don’t have our priorities straight, being able to take a plane to travel thousands of km to go see a painting from the 1600s is more important to us than making sure our neighbors are able to eat or keeping some species alive.
At some point we’ll have to wake up and face reality, there’s nothing more important than the incoming climate crisis and if we don’t address it, us preserving these paintings and Stonehenge and so on will all have been for nothing as it will be cockroaches that will be left to enjoy them.
Same as going to see whales or a rhinoceros. Why not spray paint an elephant? Cut down the biggest redwood tree! I mean there are PEOPLE who are starving!
Relics of humanity AND nature AND all the stuff in nature belong to everybody, not just rich assholes. Wrecking these things to draw attention to other topics is peak entitlement.
Please tell me where I said it’s ok to travel to go check out whales and rhinos? I’ll be the first one to tell you airplane traveling should be limited to essential travel and tourism is a major environmental problem.
It’s funny because you used two examples of damaging living things while these people are intentionally “damaging” non living things in order to make us pay attention to all the living things we’re letting suffer.
I picked living things intentionally because there are people who will put more value on heritage and “stuff” than those lives. For example, if I had to choose between the very last rhino and the Great pyramid, I wouldn’t pick the rhino, stonehenge or all of the orangutans is a different discussion. Even any one person weighed against some objects (or other species) is not a cut and dry discussion. It’s totally shitty to think you get to pick what’s more or less important for everyone.
The first time an activist jumps through a plane engine will get a lot more press and is better targeted, and I don’t mean that in a casual / flippant / dismissive way. A spree of vandalism to aircraft engines or supply lines would also do a fine job at a lower cost. People won’t stop traveling because one monument gets defaced temporarily or permanently.
Then I would tell you you’ll be in the wrong side of history because you can save all the stuff you want, once there’s no one to enjoy it it will all have been worthless, saving living things so something survives us is much more important.
You’ve created a false dichotomy. There is no need to trivialize shared treasures or heritage in pursuit of any cause in order to save anything or anyone. You’ve decided in some Machiavellian twist that whatever cause you think is truly just is more important than anything other people might value.
It is absolutely important to protect our future, ourselves, and the life we share the planet with, but not by throwing tantrums with unrelated collateral damage. Fight for the climate by fighting for the climate, not by desecrating churches/monuments/art/nature in some weird plight to accidentally piss off the right people and get more TV time.
Good luck making an omelette without breaking some eggs. You’re just pushing for the status quo, find me a single revolution that achieved major societal changes without collateral damage.
You break eggs because you need eggs. There are casualties of war because civilians and infrastructure are near the opposing force. There’s a word for doing that stuff when it’s not necessary: war crimes.
Find me a single revolution that was won or significantly enabled by defacing a heritage site or a priceless work of art as a core tactic.
Stonehenge dosen’t containt oil, are they stupid?
No, but people are ready to burn a shit ton of it to go see it though.
it’s just some rocks, by celts. paintings probably do more damage to the environment than rocks
It’s not about if the object damages the environment, the point they’re making is that society is ready to spend fortunes preserving old objects while everything around them is going to shit. We don’t have our priorities straight, being able to take a plane to travel thousands of km to go see a painting from the 1600s is more important to us than making sure our neighbors are able to eat or keeping some species alive.
At some point we’ll have to wake up and face reality, there’s nothing more important than the incoming climate crisis and if we don’t address it, us preserving these paintings and Stonehenge and so on will all have been for nothing as it will be cockroaches that will be left to enjoy them.
don’t we have cameras? is everyone stupid?
Same as going to see whales or a rhinoceros. Why not spray paint an elephant? Cut down the biggest redwood tree! I mean there are PEOPLE who are starving!
Relics of humanity AND nature AND all the stuff in nature belong to everybody, not just rich assholes. Wrecking these things to draw attention to other topics is peak entitlement.
Please tell me where I said it’s ok to travel to go check out whales and rhinos? I’ll be the first one to tell you airplane traveling should be limited to essential travel and tourism is a major environmental problem.
It’s funny because you used two examples of damaging living things while these people are intentionally “damaging” non living things in order to make us pay attention to all the living things we’re letting suffer.
I picked living things intentionally because there are people who will put more value on heritage and “stuff” than those lives. For example, if I had to choose between the very last rhino and the Great pyramid, I wouldn’t pick the rhino, stonehenge or all of the orangutans is a different discussion. Even any one person weighed against some objects (or other species) is not a cut and dry discussion. It’s totally shitty to think you get to pick what’s more or less important for everyone.
The first time an activist jumps through a plane engine will get a lot more press and is better targeted, and I don’t mean that in a casual / flippant / dismissive way. A spree of vandalism to aircraft engines or supply lines would also do a fine job at a lower cost. People won’t stop traveling because one monument gets defaced temporarily or permanently.
Then I would tell you you’ll be in the wrong side of history because you can save all the stuff you want, once there’s no one to enjoy it it will all have been worthless, saving living things so something survives us is much more important.
You’ve created a false dichotomy. There is no need to trivialize shared treasures or heritage in pursuit of any cause in order to save anything or anyone. You’ve decided in some Machiavellian twist that whatever cause you think is truly just is more important than anything other people might value.
It is absolutely important to protect our future, ourselves, and the life we share the planet with, but not by throwing tantrums with unrelated collateral damage. Fight for the climate by fighting for the climate, not by desecrating churches/monuments/art/nature in some weird plight to accidentally piss off the right people and get more TV time.
Good luck making an omelette without breaking some eggs. You’re just pushing for the status quo, find me a single revolution that achieved major societal changes without collateral damage.
You break eggs because you need eggs. There are casualties of war because civilians and infrastructure are near the opposing force. There’s a word for doing that stuff when it’s not necessary: war crimes.
Find me a single revolution that was won or significantly enabled by defacing a heritage site or a priceless work of art as a core tactic.