This is like you know, a bit too real O___O
._ .
If I point this out I get an army of angry tankies heading my way…
It is both. If every individual does a harmful practice, that is 8 billion individuals contributing to pollution. Hence why we should aim to mitigate on our side.
At the same time, you and I can mitigate our entire lives and still put out less than the corporations and other individuals who care less, but it still is contributing.
I don’t think we should be militant about it, just mindful. We should be militant towards corporate pollution, and mindful of our own consumption.
Is blowing up an automobile factory good? Or is that too militant? How do I guage the correct degree of militantness? I don’t know how to make nitroglycerin… maybe I can snag some bourgeoisie’s heart meds and make a cursed stew out of it.
That’s the sort of question that requires distinguishing the amount of pollution you would make versus the thing you are blowing up. It may factor in if they will rebuild it and continue, or if they would not rebuild.
I would hazard a guess that in the majority of circumstances, blowing up a polluting company would be less pollutive than said company is, except for if they were to rebuild (since I would consider the resources for rebuild a necessity since you blew them up).
This is not an endorsement to explode anything, this is simply an analysis of factors about factories and their ecological terrorism.
It was only a jest. Blowing up a factory would be, you know, bad. If people were in it.
