They know that it should be the opposite to save their island but the king and his court won’t listen to them. The king’s whole lineage cut down as much as they wanted, so he’s having a tantrum that it’s not working out the same for him. He’s doing it anyway. Entitlement can do that to a fellow.

    • PeleSpirit@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      101·
      11 months ago

      I agree that it would scale. If you think of it as oligarchs and corporate CEOs=kings, it tracks. It’s tough because the older generations have a lot of people trying to save the planet, but they have and had no power either. You can live like we’re doomed and do your part or live your best life and do your part. Maybe the younger generations will have the power to make change, I hope the older generations vote for the good ones.

      • heeplr@feddit.de
        5·
        11 months ago

        I don’t believe a CEO or King is necessary for short sighted action. Humans are just very bad at sustainable long-term decisions.

        I know a guy who owns a small forrest and when wood prices were skyrocketing due to supply chain disruption, he was tempted to sell more wood than planned. So he couldn’t sell as much in the following years. He has no boss, is not rich and makes his own decisions.

        It’s a simple mechanism of supply and demand. I can’t see a reason why people wouldn’t cut down more trees than can grow back when demand is ultra high, other than force/legislation. And then people get angry because they won’t realize that they’d destroy their own business in the long run. A worldwide life-threatening situation won’t change that.

      • heeplr@feddit.de
        1·
        11 months ago

        wouldn’t make that consent even harder? or imply wars?

        e.g. Brazil. Imagine they got the last lumber on earth, they’d have to choose between preserving their last trees and incredible wealth by selling it. I can’t imagine a poor country to choose the former.