The public projections of a guy who sucks dick to feed his private addictions.

Don’t forget the neoliberal fantasy of a gleeful slave class who work for food.

No, forest fires have existed for as long as trees have existed. It’s not unnatural quantities of wood being burned. It’s the amount of wood that is normal and natural for the ecosystem to maintain homeostasis.

Don’t message me again. We’re just going in circles at this point.

Air travel is burning petroleum, genius.

Fine. It’s a matter of scale and a matter of homeostasis. The environment is stable without humans burning hydrocarbons. The carbon exists in a cycle where it is released by dying animals and plants, and by natural fire cycles. When humans dig up millions of years of sequestered carbon, then it throws off the balance of natural ecosystems. The carbon is all mixed up in the atmosphere, where it collects PCBs and other pollutants from industry. Some of that carbon is re-sequestered by growing plant life. Any human efforts at burning the carbon that’s actively being used by ecosystems are purely masterbatory and distract resources from actual solutions like decreasing dependence on oil.

Saying “carbon is carbon” doesn’t make it true. It just gives a slogan to your ignorance.

The carbon in the trees is part of the living carbon cycle. It’s normal and natural. “Solutions” like this one interfere with the natural cycles of the environment for little benefit. The carbon we need to be worried about has been sequestered for millions of years, not the carbon that has always been in active use by living ecosystems.

If we valued a homeostatic, intentional civilization we could be the immune system of the planet instead of the capitalistic cancer we currently are.

Well that’s because the plan is stupid and ineffective. Far more carbon could be sequestered by growing kudzu and then dumping it down mines.

That’s nothing new. We’ve been doing that since the 80s.

Stopping forest fires does not affect sequestration in the least. It would be far more efficient to just bury organic material in dead mines than to prevent forest fires, and preventing the forest fires destroys the natural ecology.

Nature isn’t unpredictable. It’s done the same thing forever. We are the ones fucking it up.

It’s limited by being in trees and new growth… Even after a fire. The carbon that makes a difference was buried under the ground until we poured it out all over ourselves and the world.

Wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem. Some ecosystems would collapse without them. But stopping wildfires doesn’t cut into profits, it can even be made profitable!

Every one of my efforts could be wiped out by a single stroke of a pen, and they have been thousands of times over by billionaires making decisions that affect all of us.

“We” aren’t to blame because “we” aren’t running the show.

No, without the profiteers capitalizing on our desires the world would look a lot differently.

I always thought it rewarded skill better. Instead of blue shells, karts were faster the farther back they fell in rankings, the lack of randomized items encouraged strategy, and if you didn’t touch the steering, accelerator or brakes, the boosts would last longer. Plus the music was dope.

Reminds me of a true story of a mother who died at home with her toddler in the apartment. By the time anybody noticed, 4 days later the child had been living off cereal and sugar, and he rubbed lotion on his mother’s body to try to help her feel better.

Egoism comes from one of two sources, so you can pick your poison. Ayn Rand is popular with libertarians, conservatives, and other short-sighted, smooth-brain ideologies. Left Hand Path Satanism is the other source. That form of egoism isn’t inherently ignorant, but it attracts edgelords and misanthropes.