I think this sends a much stronger message than stone henge
Almost as if when you target the problem it sends a better message than doing some random shit.
So close together? Probably not. Look at the comments. everyone is just talking about Stonehenge.
The fact that most comments here seem to be talking about stone henge says otherwise. If not for what happened to stone henge recently, people might not have paid this much attention to this.
Those idiots destroying paintings and monoliths belong behind bars. That won’t convince anyone with even half a brain to think. Just destroys something and makes everyone angry.
destroying paintings and monoliths
But… they didn’t do either of those things. They threw soup at glass, and for the Stonehenge thing they used washable powder paint. They were publicity stunts with no damage done.
Yeah but it’s a lot harder to paint climate activists as the bad guys when you say things like “they souped our glass and powdered our rocks”, so better to just lie, right?
Ugh I HATE it when my glass gets souped.
Going after a painting that’s behind glass is VERY different to going after the stone henge that has no protective layer, and most importantly of all, has nothing to do with the target of their cause
saying it destroyed the stone henge is a major exaggeration, saying it did no damage is also just as wrong. The English heritage society emphasised that it was only no VISIBLE damage left, however they also said it did cause damage.
It’s just like how you can’t touch walls in caves because any change in the oils and stuff in our skins can cause long term damage even though there’s no immediate visible damage
How do you think those rocks will fare when the average temperature rises a few degrees?
Do you think the big stones will avoid damage while humans are fighting wars over water?
Are those precious rocks going to be ok when countries near the equator become uninhabitable, and the UK has to violently defend its borders from millions of climate refugees?
Do you think it can still be considered a cultural heritage site after all the humans are dead?
It’s going to be too cold to visit once the Gulf Stream stalls from reduced ocean salinity, and Britain’s climate is more like northern Canada or Alaska.
I never once said I disagree with their message, but doesn’t mean I need to agree with their methods
If their message is that oil is bad and that government should be doing more, they should be targeting oil companies, lobbyists, government officials, companies that have excess waste and chemical use (coke im looking at you)… Not heritage listed stuff that’s mostly maintained by volunteers
They do that too.
If their message was anti whaling and they cut down trees as well as sabotaged boats, would you be “well they attack boats too so that’s fine”?
If you actually agreed with their message, then I don’t think you would take the time to whinge about the safety of the precious rocks.
No, because I don’t agree with their methods… Just like any extremist group might have a good message but doesn’t mean I agree with them bombing oil pipelines or kidnapping people
Attacking rocks does nothing to progress their cause… Attacking things in the environment doesn’t even line up with their cause of wanting to protect the environment
As long as they stick to actually attacking the companies and groups that actually are the cause of the problems, I would support their methods and as a result, them as a group
But they’re…rocks!
Goddammit they’re MINERALS, Marie!
So are caves, yet humans can very easily cause damage to them accidentally, let alone deliberately
Ah, I can feel that lemmy is going mainstream.
Hey, just went back to this conversation now that the UNESCO report claims that the highway construction project is putting Stonehenge in real danger. What’s your opinion on that?
Those idiots destroying paintings and monoliths belong behind bars.
If only you were so vitriolic about the fossil fuel execs destroying the entire planet.
But think of the art!!!
/s
Destroyed? Let’s talk about that.
As you know, Stonehenge has been standing in the rain for 3,000 years.
Following the industrial revolution, fossil fuel emissions made that acid rain. It attacked every cultural artifact standing outdoors for decades.
I think that the people who did that belong behind bars.
ThOsE iDiOtS!1!
Says the moron while not even taking 3 seconds to understand what they did and why they did it. Lol
Look how angry everyone gets about art and architecture whilst not even remotely having the same reaction about climate change and what it’s doing to our planet.
I think that’s kinda the commenters point. Morons almost have a chance of connecting a few dots when it’s private jets. Half a step removed, and nope, morons won’t even attempt understanding
I think the point is to ragebait people into reading about it.
An educational campaign doesn’t work.
People get angry when the protests disrupt their day.
Peaceful protests happen literally everyday in the US in nearly every city and hear nothing about them.
The only way it gets visibility is it has to be disruptive, and the only way to get them to read/learn about it is to hook them in. And if Faux News has taught anyone anything, it’s that ragebaiting is fucking effective.
anyone that thinks people will say ‘oh these guys are doing something I feel is stupid, I better learn what they have to say’ has never met a single human in their life.
Yet that’s pretty much exactly what I did.
That’s funny, you realize not everyone will jump to the conclusion it was ‘stupid’ right away? Most will say, “they did what? Why?” Aka curiosity. We learn more. We understand. Then we decide if it’s stupid or not.
Not gonna lie, this was my thought process for some time. But protests aren’t meant to be comfortable.
Have you ever seen the pictures of the ocean after the gulf oil spill? They never did fix that - they just sprayed chemicals that sunk the oil to the bottom of the gulf, creating a dead zone (with help from agricultural chemical runoff from the Mississippi River). And the people there never did get treated for all their medical issues, even though most of their food comes out of that ocean. That’s also why we need Medicare for all btw - so we can make sure the EPA, CDC, and other government organizations are actually doing their job and people are actually taken care of when something goes wrong.
Hear me out, painting private planes don’t effect 98% of humanity not everyone has an interest in the arts.
yep. I can get behind this one
And that’s the kind of protest that people get behind.
Yeah, this I can get behind. Fuck those guys painting Stonehenge, but this? Yeah, go ahead.
Controversial opinion: whats the point of stonehenge if there is no humanity? Its not like it fosters some ecosystem or smth for other species, its a historical piece which holds sentimental value to us humans.
If we continue to use oil, we will for sure fuck up humanity. The act was controversial but the message needs to be looked at
Ice cold take
What’s the point of destroying Stonehenge if humanity survives as a cascading result of stopping air travel? Defacing or destroying Stonehenge is not the lynch pin that solves or even moves the needle on climate change.
Worse, if it WORKS it means the next cause that is perhaps not existential is going to come and destroy something else that belongs to humanity. Weirdly, when nation states destroy heritage sites it’s considered a type of war crime, but when it comes up for raising awareness for climate change fuck yeah everyone’s in!
No one destroyed Stonehenge. They covered it in
wheat-basedcornstarch-based dye that washes off in the rain (something England gets a lot of). Calm your tits.Last time it was cornstarch.
And the stones are covered in lichen that protect the stone
While you are correct (and while I said destroy OR deface), the two different posts about this both contain people advocating for actual destruction for the same reasons.
Please read the other posts and alarm your tits to the reality / tenor of the discussion.
Okay “alarm your tits” is a genuinely funny turn of phrase.
I laughed when I wrote it.
What’s the point of being alive if you’re just gonna die one day?
With that attitude we can just about go ahead and kill ourselves, what’s the point, right?
My point is that trying to destroy stonge henge and art just to get attention to your cause is doing the cause a disservice. If anything it gives oil producers ammonto say “see how idiotic they are? They don’t know what they’re doing, climate change isnt real”
Stop punishing all of humanity for what is caused and controlled by a select few. Destroy rich assholes airplanes, that I can get behind. Leave art and historical sites alone.
Yeah but that is the problem. These people keep on trying to destroy art and historical sites just to get the point across.
I know the point, we all know the point and there is NOTHING we can do about it. It’s ll in the hands of politicians and wealthy assholes. Destroying beautiful things or historical artifacts isn’t doing anything to further the cause, it’s not doing a single shit to teach humanity (or better, those politicians that actually can stop climate change). It’s the same as those protests that stop traffic. You only piss people off and cause ambulances to not arrive in time at hospitals.
You’re doing it wrong.
If we’re assuming that humanity will go extinct, then sure there’s no point to stonehenge. But then there’s also no point to a protest either.
If we’re assuming humanity isn’t going extinct, then there is a point to preserving stonehenge and there’s also a point to having these protests.
Seems like there’s a logic fail happening here where there’s no point to preserving stone henge for the future but there is still a point to a protest about preserving things for the future.
Yeah but protesting has a lot better odds at improving that future than Stonehenge I’d argud
There’s zero chance that protesting Stonehenge will improve the future, they’re just rocks.
Protesting an oil refinery might have better odds tho.
Zero change is pretty damn impressive confidence intervals, and oil refineries are much easier to cover things up/rewrite the story at
Even easier to rewrite history when someone is attacking something like Stonehenge. “Just a bunch of idiots that don’t really care about the problem, they’re just trying to get attention for themselves.” And is that all that far from the truth? IT is 100% about getting attention the only thing that’s debatable is whether it’s attention for the cause or attention for themselves.
The problem isn’t that people don’t know global warming exists, the problem is they don’t care. Sure, being an asshole gets you attention, but it doesn’t influence anyone to help with a cause. So whatever their intent, these kinds of actions are just selfish attention seeking.
So you want them to break into a secure facility and probably get federal charges instead of some rocks?
Cause these rocks are special rocks to you?
Humanity wont end because of a rise in temperature. Humanity will change. Believing it’s an extinction level event is the opinion of someone who uses the bible as the timeline of humanity.
Spend a minute on the topic of historical changes in climate and you will see humanity will endure. Change sure, but not gone.
Well, if there’s massive ecological collapse and mass extinction events abound, there’s honestly no way to know if we’ll survive or not. To claim we’ll survive when climatic changes are currently killing off everything is the opinion of someone who uses the Bible as evidence of human supremacy.
Worst case, the centipedes will probably take over again… If they make it too.
Probably at least tardigrades
Rising temperatures are contributing to the decline of animal species and ecosystems that we depend on for our survival, for example bees and other pollinators. If these ecosystems break, it cascades and it will most likely cause the extinction of a bunch of plant and animal species that are necessary for our survival.
Less technical summary:
As of 2021, according to SRI, we had already gone beyond the safe limit for five of these planetary boundaries:
• climate change;
• biogeochemical flows (i.e., excessive phosphorus and nitrogen pollution from fertilizer use);
• biosphere integrity (e.g., extinction rate and loss of insect pollination);
• land-system change (e.g., deforestation);
• and novel entities (e.g., pollution from plastics, heavy metals, and what are commonly referred to as “forever chemicals”).
In an April 2022 update, SRI found that a portion of a sixth planetary boundary – fresh water use – had also been crossed. In addition, in a June 2021 interview with the journal Globalizations, Dr. Will Stefan of SRI said that a seventh planetary boundary had also likely been crossed: ocean acidification (one that has been theorized as a key contributor to previous mass extinction events in geologic history). One other boundary has been too uncertain to judge: atmospheric aerosols from fine particle pollution caused by fossil fuel combustion. Yet, we are clearly pushing this boundary too, when considering that air pollution from burning fossil fuels has been blamed for 8.8 million deaths worldwide per year.
More technical version from 2023, please note that these scientific findings were OPTIMISTIC because scientists were told to not fear monger and that people would think they were crazy if they had less optimistic findings. As time has gone on, we are finding cascading events we didn’t anticipate significantly worsening everything.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Scientific insight into planetary boundaries does not limit, but stimulates, humankind to innovation toward a future in which Earth system stability is fundamentally preserved and safeguarded.
Many of the ecological factors not sufficiently represented in current biogeochemical models could lead to even less desirable consequences of leaving the safe operating space.
They furthermore support the placement of the planetary boundaries for climate and land system change at the lower end of the zone of increasing risk.
Note that these findings reflect optimistic modeling assumptions
Six planetary boundaries are found currently to be transgressed (Fig. 1 and Table 1). For all of the boundaries previously identified as transgressed [climate change, biosphere integrity (genetic diversity), land system change, and biogeochemical flows (N and P)], the degree of transgression has increased since 2015.
Note that these findings reflect optimistic modeling assumptions
The planetary boundary for atmospheric CO2 concentration is set at 350 ppm and for radiative forcing at 1 W m−2. Currently, the estimated total anthropogenic effective radiative forcing is 2.91 W m−2 [2022 estimate, relative to 1750 (17)], and atmospheric CO2 concentration is 417 ppm [annual mean marine surface value for 2022 (41)], i.e., further outside the safe operating space on both measures than in the last update (2).
Thus, anthropogenic ocean acidification currently lies at the margin of the safe operating space, and the trend is worsening as anthropogenic CO2 emission continues to rise.
Although the baseline rate of extinctions (and of new species’ evolution) is both highly variable and difficult to quantify with confidence through geological time, the current rate of species extinctions is estimated to be at least tens to hundreds of times higher than the average rate over the past 10 million years and is accelerating (24). We conservatively set the current value for the extinction rate at >100 E/MSY (24–26). Of an estimated 8 million plant and animal species, around 1 million are threatened with extinction (16), and over 10% of genetic diversity of plants and animals may have been lost over the past 150 years (23). Thus, the genetic component of the biosphere integrity boundary is markedly exceeded (Fig. 1 and Table 1).
Note that these findings reflect optimistic modeling assumptions
With such an enormous percentage of untested chemicals being released to the environment, a novel entities boundary defined in this manner is clearly breached. Persson et al. (43) did not identify or quantify a singular planetary boundary for novel entities but, nevertheless, also concluded that the safe operating space is currently overstepped.
while the climate warming problem became evident in the 1980s, problems arising in functional biosphere integrity due to human land use began a century earlier. Since the 1960s, growth in global population and consumption further accelerated land use, driving the system further into the zone of increasing risk. HANPP has always sustained humanity’s need for food, fiber, and fodder, and this will continue to be the case in the future, as well as for sustainable societies. The NPP required to support future societies must, however, increasingly be generated through additional production of NPP above the Holocene baseline, not including the NPP generated for biology-based carbon sinks. Feeding 10 billion people, for example, is theoretically possible within planetary boundaries but requires a number of far-reaching transformations to improve the impacts of production and regulate demand (36).
The last time the climate changed this much it spelled the end of hereditary monarchies.
Maybe this one will end capitalism.
Just how the Black death was great for the working class. The plague didn’t discriminate. So the guilds collapsed and regular people could take up professions exclusive they was locked out of earlier.
Best thing that happened for reform was the black death. Almost as if toppling the social elite is net positive for everyone.
Maybe this one will end capitalism.
Maybe but I get the impression the next iteration will be worse, not better - an authoritarian slave state dressed up as socialism or something. You don’t need money to be poor after all.
The Prophecies have foretold it will be like Star Trek and it is our job to fulfill them.
Dream on
I think you mean only rich people will be okay long enough to adapt. The rest of us will be left to die.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a future where the greed driven, amoral, ethicless elites get to live on while everyone else gets to suffer and die.The rich will be the only one to survive how exactly?
Do you have any idea of how much empty space there is available in the northern hemisphere? A huge portion of the planet are inhabitable as it is now. Not because of heat but the opposite. The ocean level rising is neither a new phenomenon. The ocean has raised and fallen multiple times through the existence of our species. The first people who got to UK walked there. And when they settled hippos lived there.
Humans have never lived in a static environment. Most humans aren’t capable of imagining time beyond their own lifetime. Therefore some choose to resign. I guess that’s Darwinism at its finest.
I’m all in with climate change suck. I’m all for dragging the rich out in the street and setting them on fire for fucking everything up. But how some think we live in this static environment that only changed just now, and it will be our end is just wrong.
What about our technology? Our culture? Those aren’t nearly as likely to survive, and a few handful of our species survival is meaningless without the above two.
And the dinosaurs are an example of a species that hasn’t survived.
The fact that you seem to guarantee in your mind that humanity would survive is survivorship bias, I think? Or some other type of bias. Anyways. It’s the same type of bias that religious people have in their minds, where they think the simple fact they happen to exist is just so improbable that there must be another factor at play to ensure their existence.
deleted by creator
We’re not going to die from climate change. Screw up the environment? Sure. But humans have the capability to literally live in space, on the moon, and soon enough, mars.
*while supported from Earth.
We don’t have second Earth to be supported from.
Best of luck when earth is slightly less viable for crops and a couple billion starve.
But no we can temporarily not kill 4 or 5 people so we must be unkillable from anything
Dude radiation from just being in space permanently damages your organs. They don’t even think we can survive the trip to mars, much less live there.
The guys doing Stonehenge at least tried. They used a powder they thought would just come off in the rain.
Did it not come off?
The Stone Henge people are saying that the water, lichen, and powder would have reacted badly. I do not have the education to know if that’s true or not.
Strangley, 2 days ago they said they’ll have to get the experts out to have a look at it, before they can tell.
What a very quick turnaround that, apparently, was…
They’re probably just a bunch of upset babies blowing everything out of proportion, of course they would go to the most unlikely and extreme outcome.
Meh.
Their job is to defend stonehenge at all costs. They wouldn’t let people look at it if they could get away with it.
Of course they’re going to say that the powder is reckless and could potentially upset the lichen or something.
It’s hard to believe that this stunt could have any measurable impact in another 10 years or so.
Nor did the protesters I would guess.
Neither do the media outlets, but that’s the story their running with because the oil companies run ads on their networks.
It hasn’t rained yet.
Tried what?
Give rich oil producer execs something to laugh at and say “See how silly they are? THAT is supposed to show climate change is real? It’s all nonsense, pass the coke”
You want to get attention AND piss on the right people? Then go after their big toys. Go after their airplanes. That’s something humanity could get behind, not you trying to destroy priceless art, or historical sites.
Nobody cares what the oil executives think. A protest isn’t going to make them stop producing and selling oil. And if they tried the system would dump them and bring in the next guy. Protests like this are about raising the public’s awareness and you seem pretty aware now.
It’s literally rocks. You’re valuing human life less than rocks, I think that says more about you than them.
How is this dangerous to human life in any way? They did this to the plane while it was in the ground. Presumably someone is going to clean it before attempting takeoff, and I doubt a new paint job is going to severely impact the safety of the airplane regardless. I mean I guess if they somehow clogged all the static ports it would be a problem, but that’s not particularly likely and only really a deadly situation if you take off at night or with less than competent pilots. Those are supposed to be checked before every flight regardless.
You got my point backwards boss. The climate protestors care, the people bugging about rocks don’t care about human life, they care about rocks that have historically been vandalized to make a point literally hundreds of times.
They’re rocks as well. They’ll be fine. A little paint doesn’t destroy them like temperatures do to the planet.
That’s literally what I just said…
You might want to go and tell that to the people down voting your comment. Clearly people are not understanding what you put, an edit might be in order.
I’m not particularly bothered by down votes, to me it sorta weeds out bad faith actors anyway.
This is a case of you failing to communicate though. Not bad faith actors or whatever.
It makes perfect sense.
“It’s literally rocks…” Whats just rocks? Stonehenge!
“You’re valuing human life less than rocks, I think that says more about you than them.”
What are the protestors protesting for? Climate change.
Ie. If vandalizing Stonehenge is a bigger issue to you than climate change then you’re valuing human life less than rocks.
It could not be any more clear and I think that’s pretty evident based on the lack of offering a better wording.
Problem with this argument that you can justify all kinds of crap with this. Vandalising artwork? Its just paint, you’re valuing human life less than paint? Burning a few buildings? It’s just propety bro you’re valuing some planks over human life?
It kinda smells like the eu chat analysis law whatever where they’re pulling the classic “you’re valuing privacy over children?”. Though I guess they would frame it more like “you’re putting paedophiles over children?!”.
Nah, I don’t like this direction.
No you can’t. It’s literally rocks, all uncarved aside from historical graffiti/vandalism. Ruining a painting that is not open to the elements and easily repaired by simply letting it rain is not the same as rocks that are.
Insanely stupid take
Just remember, you took time out of your day to seek someone out and act twatty. Good job, keep it up.
No, I read a dumb comment and spent a few seconds saying that it was dumb. Nice try though.
That’s still taking time out of your day and finding something to be a douchebag about, contribute to the conversation or keep your mean bully bullshit to yourself.
Big oil gonna subpoena every upvoter
Do your part to make them waste money
Hear me out. Why don’t we spray StoneHenge on the private jets ? one stone at a time, with old fashioned trebuchets
Wait a minute, that doesn’t sound like painting at all!
No one ever said you can’t paint with a trebuchet. Sounds very artistic
Rock-based paint.
or just eat the rich…
rock and stone!
Who builds a stone hedge?
Finally a great action from those folks!made my day.
See, there you go. Direct impact on people who have an impact, and you made the news.
deleted by creator
They leveled up today.
Great stuff! Disappointing that the article didn’t mention how they managed to get on the tarmac.
There’s usually nothing more than a chain-link fence.
Yeah, but you get instantly get 5 stars
:D
Now that girl is hot!
Tfw no direct action GF :(
And that’s how you get people to click on the article
Didn’t they paint the wrong jet?
No.
Literally couldn’t, all private jets are part of the problem.
fuck the swifties.
i thought nkotb or beatles fans were dumb…but swifties are a special kind of dumb. maybe we should spray them.
Why do you have to ruin good things? I dont like taylor swift but if you do what does that have to do with the artist itself. Her music can be good while shes a bad person.
The comment you’re replying to make no mention in the quality of her music. It is purely commenting on the fan’s obsessions. You can like an artistic without being a fanatic.
Yea because its completely reasonable to assault someone because they like someones music a lot?
think of michael jackson. what is it…21 video testemonies of children saying he licked their buttholes? thats why we do not listen to his shit.you cannot seperate the artist from the art.
Then they’re going to just pay some people to clean it off, cost more money, consume more energy. Publicity stunt.
Yes, that’s literally what activism is about.
Like when Ghandi went and made salt, that was the definition of a publicity stunt.
No, activism is about taking part in making a real change. If anyone really wanted to make a real change they’d have to give up their freedom. This doesn’t change anything, carbon emissions will still increase.
Name an activism campaign that worked and you support.
Name an activism campaign that worked and you support.
Here’s a chat GPT response for your boring question:
“One successful activism campaign that I support is the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement has brought attention to the prevalence of sexual harassment and assault, encouraged survivors to speak out, and sparked important conversations about consent and gender equality. It has led to increased awareness, policy changes, and accountability for perpetrators in various industries.”
This bro right here is saying that the thing thats missing from the climate movement is a hashtag. Because chatgpt said it no less. I mean, I can’t even…
They’re also saying they support activism so little that they needed chatgpt to come up with an answer for them. Almost like they don’t support any progressive movements, they don’t care about the effectiveness of the methods and they’re just here to attack climate protestors.
This kind of discussion always ruins real progress. Are you a psyop or what’s wrong with you? Genuinely curious.
If YOU want to perform activism by making “real change,” then YOU do that. Not everyone can do every thing. Eg at a protest, you might have front line people and medics, who are both important but do different roles. These people the article is about are pretty good with PR, which makes sense because they are younger and raised with media trends.
That emissions are increasing isn’t their fault, they would increase regardless so may as well go crazy and do what you want in the meantime. Nihilism and all
