I think it isn’t going to be that effective a phrase. People don’t understand why having lots of money (hoarding wealth) is a bad thing, necessarily, and it sort of implies that, if they were to just spend it it’d make the initial hoarding fine.

Gotta also focus on the fact that they essentially stole that money from workers through labor exploitation. The bare fact that they got the money to begin with is the problem, not just them holding onto it. If they were to spend it all on horrible capitalist enterprises rather than hoarding it, that’d be even worse. Even if they spent it all on “philanthropic” efforts, that’s still worse than the workers having their fair share and the government being able to actually have that money to spend on social programs through taxes.

deleted by creator

There aren’t comics afaik and, thankfully, the Jodorowsky monstrosity didn’t get made.

I mean, sure, but it’s half of a story. So much of the criticism I saw totally left out that it was part 1 of 2. I ask because it’d be like watching The Fellowship of the Ring and being upset that it was just a story about some midgets going on a hike - it’s a take you could only have if you weren’t at all familiar with the source material or even generally what it’s about. It’s not an invalid take, necessarily, but it is one that ignores that it’s only one part of a larger story. Dune Pt 1 was also a slower burn, and it’s totally valid to dislike that sort of movie.

I hope you watch the second one and can appreciate the first one as part of that context. Dune (the book, not just the movies) is very good for a lot of reasons and was incredibly influential on sci-fi as a whole. It’s obviously fine not to like it, of course, but as a lifelong fan, I just want everyone to give it a chance.

Edit: there are comics actually. Huh.

They were working on it long before the pandemic, so that’s invalid. But you read the book and believe that? Or did you not know what it was about beforehand?

That is a fair point. My only counterargument would be that due to the way cities are set up, a large portion of those emissions come from commuting. The reason people commute is they have to earn money to pay bills so they can feed their kids and keep a roof over their heads.

So, asking people to drive less could mean asking them to give up their employment, which could be much more than “giving up the comforts of their lives” like the OP suggested - again, it could really put their livelihoods in jeopardy. And, without an organized cause, clear goal, a call to action, and clear communication about why their specific sacrifices are necessary, people will not take such huge risks.

The problem is: what does it mean to do that? Right now, we don’t have an organized revolution or movement. There needs to be a specific call to action. If you want people to “give up the comforts” of their lives, they need to know what doing that will accomplish, what the specific goal of the movement is, and how “giving up the comforts” will help to achieve it.

What you might actually be asking is for people to risk their jobs by going on general strike, their homes by not paying rent, etc. This is really more than “the comforts of their lives”, it is their ability to survive and feed their families.

The other problem is, any cause that only requires people to “give up the comforts of their lives” likely won’t be highly impactful. For instance, general strike and protest might help the climate crisis, but giving up plastic straws and driving less or whatever really won’t make much of a dent compared to the massive impacts of global capitalism.

Shai hulud!