this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2026
106 points (100.0% liked)

World News

2307 readers
712 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

Yes. Trees, like all plants, exist primarily to make human life easier and in that goal are required to die and their corpse be used for a variety of needs; some quite ephemeral, some quite permanent.

Without wood access, assuming you are correctly against plastics, you're essentially advocating for a world where poor people don't get furniture, barbecue is tasteless, and wildfires are common place.

Edit: I genuinely didn't expect liberals to take issue with this. It's wild how right-wing beliefs like humans being smol inconsequential beans have spread in that community.

[–] Solumbran@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Wow, did you not read the things you were typing while you were typing them..?

I thought the idea that the world was made by god to serve humans was known to not exactly be a fact, but apparently some people believe it still.

By the way, yes, quite obviously you are not "woke".

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

No one brought up God. Just not using your woo-woo 'oh the earth and the trees are living beings and we're all one' nonsense that helps no one.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

They teach that in some churches though, that "everything on earth was put here for us by god".

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 weeks ago

We can trace every living thing on the planet's lineage back to a single common ancestor. We are quite literally one.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wow, human exceptionalism is fucking gross.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Sorry you're a traitor to your species.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sorry you're a traitor to every form of life except your own, lol.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

That's not how life works. Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life, until we get down to individual amino acid chains which are very arguably not life the same way a fetus is not life.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Right, and you have no respect for the other living beings that occupy that cycle? You know we're driving 200 other species to extinction every day, and when we run out, we die too, lol. Your attitude is why human beings are an extinction event.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No, your attitude is exactly why we are driving the extinction event. Every single climate change denier says the exact same tired point, "We're too small, too insignificant to change the climate." This idea humans are just another animal is objectively incorrect, and dangerous. We're not smol beans. We're not powerless. We're not equal to random animals. If we were we wouldn't have been able to cause an extinction event, we wouldn't have changed the climate, and we wouldn't be directly responsible for 60% of the animal biomass on the planet existing period.

If more people realized humans exist at the top of the food chain and are responsible for our environment and not the other way around, we could actually talk about taking global initiatives seriously.

But for as long as you people repeat the far-right Christian view that we're just another one of God's Creations we're going to keep shirking the responsibility inherent to being the singular capable lifeform on this planet.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (9 children)

What a fucking stupid world view.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Every single form of life requires the destruction of other life...

What the hell are you talking about?

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Eating, you know food. Nothing can survive off of photosynthesis alone, sugar isn't that useful.

[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You just said every single form of life dumbass. What other lifeform do plants eat exactly?

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

The corpses of fungi, you uneducated droolpan. In some cases they just parasitize the fungi (Myco-Heterotrophy). In some cases it's "symbiotic" in that the fungi sends its dead cells and receives sugar in exchange. Also what do you think fertilizer is? It's dead plant matter processed by animals and insects. Without fungus feeding on soil enriched by microbes, plants wouldn't exist on land.

And in the ocean, especially where there is little light, how do you think plants survive, you example of your education system? By eating microbes and the poop of other creatures eating microbes and plants.

And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life. I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren't people so amino acids aren't life, but that seems like a cop out at that point.

[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They do not "eat fungi corpses" you absolute buffoon. Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition.

And where do those microbes, when we go far enough down, get their energy? By eating amino acids that would otherwise form into life.

I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved.

I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life, but that seems like a cop out at that point.

It's not a cop-out, this is just you conceding.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Plants absorb resulting nutrients from their decomposition.

...So they eat their corpses. Thanks for agreeing with me? What do you think the word 'decomposition' means?

I would be curious to know how easy you think abiogenesis is achieved.

It's apparently not / that / hard.

It’s not a cop-out, this is just you conceding.

It's crazy we've gone from your position of plants don't destroy other life to maybe life doesn't exist so quickly.

[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Plants don't decompose fungi, they absorb already decomposed fungi. And I wouldn't say that the absorption of that is "eating". Plants still need other life to survive, but there is much more of a symbiotic relationship, not this Nietzschean idea that you're proposing.

We certainly know that the building blocks of life are abundant like amino acids, but life itself isn't. Protocell formation is still hard, that's why we still have a hard time replicating it. So the amino acid consumed most likely wouldn't have become life. This was my point.

I said "this is just you conceding" in response to this, nothing to do with "life doesn't exist so quickly":

I guess you could say this is the bottom of the chain as long as fetuses aren’t people so amino acids aren’t life

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

the earth gave us a place to hold life. Not a traitor to my species, just humble enough to understand we are at the mercy of nature.

For example, without the trees we'd not have anything to burn when we found fire. Nor wood houses, nor yes, our furniture. But also no shade to keep us from the sun, no place for the birds and squirrels to nest. Trees give life for many outside our species too. In nature, all is connected.

It's graditute, respect, and understanding.

Ill edit this if I can find a link, but a national forest removed the wolves from its park. A time later, the trees started dying. Sceince found (and i forget so imma look it up,) somehow the missing wolves lead to the dead trees, so they reintroduced the wolves. I believe deer pop exploded and were eating the trees dead.

[–] Nonconfrontational@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

How wolves change rivers!

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago

Are you at the mercy of the canned food in your kitchen? Are you at the mercy of the charge in your car's battery? Are you at the mercy of the clothes on your body?

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

youre a capitalist. All these points you make align with capitalism.

good work.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You're not capable of making that determination based on your post history.

[–] wilt@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

Bunch of us in agreement here.

Keep up the fight, it’s a great example of how not to be for future generations.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

aww, you peeked my profile :3

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Trees don't exist "for" us. Animals don't exist "for" us. We are a cosmic accident. The fact that they make our lives easier in a great variety of ways is incidental.

Trees, like all plants, exist as a similar cosmic accident and their "purpose" is to continue their spread and growth.

I'm not going to stop using wood any time soon, but the way you're trying to paint humans as like, the one true species or some shit, is fucking gross

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Trees don’t exist “for” us. Animals don’t exist “for” us. We are a cosmic accident.

The second point being made has no relevance to the first point.

The fact that they make our lives easier in a great variety of ways is incidental.

It's really not.

Trees, like all plants, exist as a similar cosmic accident and their “purpose” is to continue their spread and growth.

Incorrect, their purpose is to serve whatever needs we might have for them. That's the sole reason they exist.

I’m not going to stop using wood any time soon, but the way you’re trying to paint humans as like, the one true species or some shit, is fucking gross

That's evolution. That's how we evolved, and that's how we live, and that's why we are not anthropomorphic cats or octopi.

We allow these things to continue to exist because they are not harmful to us, and that they are useful to us. If they were not useful, they would cease to exist, and would've ceased to exist long before your suicidal morality came about. Until otherwise proven, the default is that things exist to serve us, the only part of the universe that can explore and understand itself. Anything less is suicide, anything more is ascribing natural evolution to God or the great spirit or or the oneness of everything other such childhood nonsense.

We are the singular apex predator. There is no living thing in the known universe that has our kill count. We allow whatever to exist, not the other way around, and we evolved to that place in the chain.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

did you read the fuckin article? lol

you need to change your name yo, what youre talking about is heirarchy. That humans are better than everything else, and anything else soley exsist to serve humans.

Without humans, the trees and animals would still be here.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

did you read the fuckin article? lol

Yes, an unscientific puff piece about green washing being presented as a good thing despite it doing nothing of value. It's the same thing as Target making a press release about rainbow children's onesies or when the US government super duper promises to replant some of the trees they blow up.

you need to change your name yo, what youre talking about is heirarchy. That humans are better than everything else, and anything else soley exsist to serve humans.

Read On Authority by Engels sometime. Not only is the point of Marxism not the elimination of all Hierarchy, communism is in fact impossible without some hierarchies.

Yes, everything exists to serve humans. This also means humans have the responsibility to continue the things that keep us alive. Saying 'oh woo woo says we're all equal and one' takes all responsibility off of humanity. The same as this nonsense:

Without humans, the trees and animals would still be here.

Maybe, we can't know that and it would be a pointless existence for them at that point. They exist so that we can exist, so we can keep them existing so we can continue to exist. The opposite is not true.

Trees cannot take care of us. They are not the solution to climate change. They don't sequester anywhere enough carbon for the amount we're releasing. They're too inefficient. And we've done too much damage. By showing we are able to end all life on Earth we show that not only is everything dependent on us, we have the sole responsibility of their survival as well.

[–] Madzielle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 weeks ago

I dont think Id enjoy living my life if I were you.

bummer. sorry yo.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oh you're gross gross. I see. Pity cause you're otherwise a quality leftie. I won't be talking to you anymore, but have a wonderful life and I hope you'll reconsider your stance on this issue!

[–] wilt@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 weeks ago

Nothing exists for humans. Fix yourself.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Trees exist for trees. Their purpose is to make more trees. Humans are not a consideration.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Their purpose is whatever purpose we have for them. We could eliminate them at any time on a whim.

[–] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

You are looking at this as if the whole world was made for humans. You perhaps a creationist?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That is an incredibly colonialist capitalist attitude and it's exactly what got us into this ecological crisis.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You objectively do not know what either of those words mean.

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Oh, sweetie. Honey.

[–] Malyca@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You're one of those people that thinks there's a sky daddy aren't you?

load more comments (1 replies)