Because religion evolved to thrive in us.

It’s like a parasite, and our mind is the host. It competes with other mind-parasites like other religions, or even scientific ideas. They compete for explanatory niches, for feeling relevant and important, and maybe most of all for attention.

Religions evolved traits which support their survival. Because all the other variants which didn’t have these beneficial traits went extinct.

Like religions who have the idea of being super-important, and that it’s necessary to spread your belief to others, are ‘somehow’ more spread out than religions who don’t convey that need.

This thread is a nice collection of traits and techniques which religions have collected to support their survival.

This perspective is based on what Dawkins called memetics. It’s funny that this idea is reciprocally just another mind-parasite, which attempted to replicate in this comment.

Right?

“I would have helped avoiding the apocalypse! But then some random guys sprayed paint on some things!”

Activists (try to) do that as well. But it’s much harder to get close to a rich person or their property, than it is to do something in public spaces. They, too, have to see what they can do with their limited resources.

Next, the media coverage is very unequal, as well as reader’s interest. You are much more likely to click on an article covering a potentially outrageous action, than you are to read about something which does not bother anyone. Although you can rest assured, these things are tried and done frequently.

So naturally, to the uninvolved reader, it may seem as if activists don’t do anything but stupid stunts. And naturally, each outsider seems to think they have a much better grasp of strategy and what actions might make sense than the people who are actually involved in these things.

Of course, a particular action can still be silly. I just want to draw attention to biases at play, in general.

And if you really have a much better idea how to do something about the climate crisis, then go ahead and shine as an example. Not only would you author an actually impactful action (which in itself should be reason enough), you could also show all these rookie activists how to get things done. If your example is convincing, you should see less media coverage about inferior actions.

Dumm di dumm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles

Der Markt für Verbrenner verschwindet in den nächsten 10 bis 20 Jahren. Zeigt mal wieder deren Wirtschaftskompetenz.

What do you mean? Of course they do. It’s not a contradiction, because they are adversaries.

making the shops pay more to use the payment service, so that the shops then increase the prices, so that you pay the same as before

Just nitpicking because I enjoy these thoughts:

When the shop increases prices, it has to do it for all the customers, including the ones without credit card. So a part of the cost is offloaded to other types of customers. While credit card customers should see a slight increase in price, it should not be as much as they saved previously. So still a net win for them, at the cost of others.

As others pointed out, the real scheme is probably entirely different.

There are many such ways to memorize conversion ratios. Admittedly, this one is particularly cool, since you can construct it from the fairly trivial fibonacci series. But I still feel, it’s no replacement for the actual solution; get rid of imperial and adopt metric.

That’s a weird take. Methane emissions are one impact, land use change another. There are even studies arguing in both directions.

Meat production is a main driver of rainforest deforestation. All three of these claims are well documented and easily searchable.

So either way, it’s evidently wrong to say cattle don’t had any impact.

We need to do all of it, it’s not an either-or. That luxury is long gone.

Maybe it has become worse since all those vegan or vegetarian fast food options became available in stores and restaurants.

When I hear non-vegs talk about living meat-free, the conversation always revolves around these meat substitutes, how unhealthy they are.

It does not come to their mind one can prepare a meal from fresh produce. Yes of course, fast food is unhealthy. On the other hand, I like it.