I heard this becomes more true the more you upvote it. It’s so true you don’t even have to check yourself for confirmation bias.

“There are more than enough resources to go around.”

but also

“We can reduce, reuse, and repair much of what we already have” (there were more than enough resources to go around, but begin reducing, reusing, and repairing, don’t look for a contradiction)

but also

“Our “quality” of life does need to change.” (except for having to reduce, reuse, and repair everything, right)

but also

“We do not need a new phone every few years, we don’t need fast fashion” (it’s not changing the quality of life if you dismiss it’s value as a quality of life improvement)

As everyone knows, in a fixed resource systems, there is an infinite amount of resources to go around, but also reduce, reuse, repair, scrounge, scavenge, no reason, just cause, quality of life totally the same.

Hey, I’ve discovered this funny thing. Whenever I read an argument I don’t like, I just have to change the definition of the terms the argument uses to whatever is more convenient to my argument, and BAM, I’m f-ing right!