• Fetus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Between 1980 and 2015, The catholic church paid over $275 million of compensation to victims of child sexual abuse in Australia.

      In the US, they spent over $300 million on costs related to clergy abuse. In one year.

      To put that into perspective, imaging earning minimum wage in the US, full time hours. Now imaging working for 50 years, saving every single cent you make. You haven’t earnt enough to cover a single day of those costs.

      All in all, http://www.bishop-accountability.org claim that the church has paid about $4 billion on child sexual abuse cases. This doesn’t include the money they spent moving paedophiles around the world so that they can continue to abuse kids.

      But we may never know how much money the church really has, because they are actively hiding assets to minimise their value, in an attempt to limit the amount they have to pay to the victims of their crimes.

      • RBG
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hot damn. 4 billion total so far and its probably them trying hard paying as little as possible. So thats got to be like what, 1-5% of what they actually possess?

    • Zron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you want that figure in tons of nazi gold or tons of stolen artifacts?

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    You and your org lost control of the rich class a long time ago, organized religion is just for the commoners these days. You have no power here, the stock market has taken them fully.

    • hh93@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Noone is forcing anyone to eat meat or fly

      Sure the 0,1% polluting 1000 times as much as average people is really shitty but just cutting their emissions down will not solve the problem

      Making huge changes among the population is necessary, too.

      Obviously you need to tackle the rich, too, in order to get the population on your side but for laws to happen you also need a decent part of the population already agreeing with that law and living by it.

    • kandoh@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Animal agriculture is currently using an amount of land that’s the equivalent of the entirety of North America.

      • DankMemeMachine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but people need food, people don’t need hundreds of flights on a private jet each year. One problem is easier to solve than the other so we should start there.

        • kandoh@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Animal agriculture uses more food than it produces. You need to feed the animals and the meat they produce is considerably less food than what they consumed.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I urge the pope to make profound changes to tackle the pedophilia crisis.

    Having sais that, yeah, the world could have, should have, would have, but it’s too late already and the next few generations are deeply fucked

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You mean about climate change?

        Edit: trigger warning: I got nothing against you, I don’t know who of what you are but… what follows is a very cold dose of reality. Be warned, beware.

        Well yeah, that is because we ARE defeated, pretty much. By our greedy overloards. And we let them for decades. And right now, at this point, this is so bad that even if we dead stop all CO2 output today, we’re still going to be cooking 20 years from now and we’ll be cooking for centuries, maybe even a Millenium before things turn better. This is not doomsday thinking, this is physics.

        If you think we can make things better by pulling the CO2 out of the air then let me give you a little cold shower. Pulling all the CO2 out of the air to levels pre industrialization will take about the same amount of energy we got out of burning all those girls since the industrial revolution started, centuries ago.

        Basically, for the next centuries, we will need to spend 50% of the worlds energy budget to scrubbing CO2 out the air. And that is only a small part of the picture, because now you have the CO2, and that is in bizarre large quantities. We’re talking cubic kilometers per year. You need to store that somehow and if it escapes, you’re all back to the start again. So you convert it into plastics? That too costs LOADS of energy and those too over time will degrade and can cause pollution issues. Maybe convert them into billions of diamonds?

        Either way, that conversion and or storage too will take up about another similar amount of energy. So now we’ll be spending 60-70% of the worlds energy budget for the next centuries on scrubbing and converting and storing that co2

        This is not imaginary, this is not panic mode, this is not doomsday thinking. This is the real world bitch, there are not free lunches

        And meanwhile we’ll be cooking. Loads of animal species will go extinct, food production will dalter causing massive starvation, which likely will cause loads of wars.

        People were talking about rising sea water levels for quite a while but I have no idea why. High temperatures will fuck us over long before. Hell, high temperatures are fucking us over already. All that you’ve seen with forest fires? That’s the beginning. Expect every year to become worse, period.

        We MIGHT be able to save the world by spraying sulfuric compunds into the upper atmosphere. We did it before in the lower atmosphere with pollution, it caused shit acid rain, it lowered temperatures because it reflects sunlight. We can spray it around in the upper atmosphere using airplanes. It’ll still cause (less) acid rain but we’re at the point where we need to start choosing if we cut off an arm or lose both legs…

        Make no mistake. This is not a “hole in the ozone layer” type problem that can be resolved in a decade. This problem has been brewing for centuries and will take centuries to resolve, in the best case.

        Worst case, the ocean starts to burn up a lot of CO2 locked in at the bottom, permafrost starts belching the CO2 locked in there and next thing we’re not worrying about global 2 degree rise, were worrying about a 10 degree rise. On the local levels, temperatures may already get to 10-15 degrees higher than normal anyway today.

        In any case, all of those best case scenarios is if we dead stop today and we’ll, fuck that shit. We’re not stopping, we’re not even lowering, we’re increasing because fuck the next generations. The elites who make the decisions don’t give a shit. I cannot do anything myself. So yes, I have a defeatist attitude. Because we’re fucked. You’re fucked. We’ll still live, though. The next generation is that generation that truly will be fucked with a cactus. They actually may not live to see the end of the world.

        • geogle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fyi, I’m an Earth Scientist working more than 20 years along with others that contribute heavily to the IPCC climate models, and advise the US executive branch on climate issues. I do know a thing or two. Humans have done pretty well through the last ice age when global temperatures were, on average, about 6°C cooler than now. Proto-humans and other primates have lived in much warmer climates than now. Humans can and likely will survive the climate crisis.

          The biggest questions are how warm and how fast? How will we sustain ourselves. Globally, we need to shrink in population, and by all accounts it looks like with populations advancing few children are born and later.

          I’m not at all optimistic about climates impact on us, but to say we’ve lost is not helpful.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    He needs to excommunicate leaders that don’t pass sweeping legislation. He won’t but that would be the only way to force their hand.

  • eee@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The rich, on their private jets: “can’t hear you, too busy eating caviar”