Personally I'm very aware that I'm considered rich to the vast majority of the world, but my consumption is absolutely dwarfed by those that have private jets or large yachts or massive homes. Removing the consumption of a multi-millionare would be considerably more beneficial to the planet than removing me or you, by several orders of magnitude.
Sure rich people aren't buying from Temu and aren't living in thousands of houses, but private jet usage alone is devastating to the planet... and then add in all the huge houses, the massive estates not used for food production, the luxury items that are carbon-intensive, etc.
Yes, at an individual level for sure, but once you tally up the millions like you? So, by the same token, if the billionaire can remove a million like us, then they can continue on merrily.
Yep - but add up the production, transport and disposal of all that crap - and it is pretty extreme.
I get what you are saying, but we are all complicit.
Absolutely, I'm not denying we all have an impact... you could get rid of poorest 66% of humankind OR you could get rid of the top 1% to have the exact same impact.
The greatest good comes from the 2nd option.
The problem is, get rid of the 1% and they will be replaced by the next 1%
I actually disagree with this... if there was an actual consequence for over-consuming and the top 1% were punished for it, I think we'd actually see a far more equitable approach from the next 1%... and if not, maybe the next 1% after that.
We are literally talking about the trolley problem here. To heal the atmosphere, you have to choose between terminating 80,000,000 people or 5,280,000,000 people - what do you choose?