If a group of around 20k-800k ultra-rich people became so blinded by greed that their actions were the equivalent of aiming a gun and squeezing on a trigger at every other human today, every future human, and every other living thing, wouldn't murdering 50 people to make a sufficient point to change the course of enough corrupt plutocracies around the world to ensure the survival of the species, wouldn't that be morally-justified?
Does pacifist non-violence solve everything when the opposition responds to nothing short of threats to their personal security and cedes nothing without a harsh and bitter fight? Should the American Revolutionaries have held hands and hoped the British would leave out of the kindness of their hearts?
In this context, your comment seems like self-righteous moralizing on the wrong side of history.
If someone threatens your life, your children's lives, your friends' lives, your neighbor's life, and you do nothing, what does that make you? A coward, yes? Petitions, strong language, holding hands, sitting in the street, and singing will definitely light a fire under their asses when they're in power, won't it?
Nothing has been "tried" in climate emergency except gentle suggestions and begging that has fallen on deaf ears. This isn't big tobacco milking profits from a dangerous product with delay tactics; it's the big, omnicidal Holocene extinction. Dead as in everything and everyone.
I’m not advocating for violence I’m just emphasizing that those 50 are much more responsible for our climate issue than the global poor. This is entirely in the hands of those that make the decisions. I should have elaborated.
There's no 50 people that you could kill to stop the world using fossil fuels. No matter how many people you kill, the remaining people will use fossil fuels just as rapidly as they already did.
