Sociologists could agree with you. Social networks have partially enslaved individuals. On FB I've got the contacts coming from my past on other social networks, but since I'm still in touch with a few of them, I ignore the others [the very largest majority]. There are persons who are not able to [or not interested in] filter in this way the contacts. This means that they will spend not a few time doing ... nothing but to keep in touch with unknown "profiles" ...Close them all!!! My quality of life dropped with Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
I'm reasonably sure that there is no "choice" involved. A species could die off because its food source dies off because its food source died off.........One million species at risk of extinction sounds awful, but what is an acceptable rate of extinction and how do we decide which species get to survive and which ones die out?
Yes. Ending cryptocurrency would also be wise: as things stand, bitcoin and the like are a power-consumption nightmare, and while my understanding is that it is possible to re-engineer them to consume less energy, you'd still need to use at least some energy continuously for the production of what amounts to a more volatile, parallel "monetary" system which is only really needed by speculators and criminals. But, this opens up the real problem with the matter: once we start talking about shutting down certain businesses based on environmental concerns in this this way, we can't help but end up with a lot of contention, and based upon usage statistics, the political impetus for shutting down something like Facebook is probably going to be lacking.Close them all!!! My quality of life dropped with Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp.
Saving species involves devoting money and expertise to improving habitats, encouraging more biodiversity, managing population numbers e.t.c. there's a lot of competing interests involved and so many species to balance out (do we focus more attention on saving insect x or insect y?). We can't save all those species, and if we do save 200,000 species we could inadvertently harm 300,000 other species (arbitrary figures but you get the point). For example, one charity advocating the saving of one insect could involve replacing one type of plant with another to encourage population numbers, only the new plant could end up displacing and damaging other insects who'll now need saving.I'm reasonably sure that there is no "choice" involved. A species could die off because its food source dies off because its food source died off.........
It only matters if action is taken."Noone" seems lately to refer more to "none of us old jaded ones".
I'm looking (and admiring) kids that for months now are out every Thursday. Sometimes thousands, sometimes dozens, but still doing it, be it sunny, rainy.
And they came with a magnificent saying:
"There isn't a planet B"
People are led by the media, and at least in the UK anyone slightly left of Atilla The Hun is painted as some kind of demented Communist.No? You don't think those massive climate change protests in London show that people care? Or the global protests by schoolchildren?