Ah right, I forget that your kind do not understand how photosynthesis works. I will explain, for the benefit of science, of course.
See, in the atmosphere, there's a molecule called carbon dioxide. One carbon atom, two oxygen atoms. Much like the dihydrogen monoxide prank in the late 90s, the normalfags have convinced themselves that carbon dioxide is EVIL and HAS to be eradicated. Facts dont matter - only that their corporate owners have riled them up into a frenzy.
However, this simple molecule is key to photosynthesis - a life-sustaining chemical reaction by which atmospheric oxygen is produced. Without carbon in the atmosphere, all photosynthesis-dependent life forms die out. That means a great majority of living creatures on earth are next. Unfortunately, that lardbucket calling herself 'mother nature' isn't aware of this either, as expected of a corporate-funded tub of fat given a soapbox.
Of course most people are against the total destruction of the planet's biosphere. Why is that a surprise? Now, your task is simple; try to go on without oxygen, a byproduct of photosynthesis for as long as possible. Why I want you to report results is simple; I want everyone to see the effects of anoxia and suffocation.
Please begin the experiment, and report your progress - minute by minute, preferably. Thank you.
A small amount of this 'greenhouse effect' is absolutely necessary for life on earth. Without it, nights would plunge down into sub-zero temperatures, which as you know, is bad news for living creatures.
That's where the problem comes in. While I admit that balance is key to the continued sustenance of the ecosystem, the overfed corporate gluttons admit that eliminating carbon from the atmosphere permanently is their goal. Opposing such an omnicidal policy does not make this group "against everything".
On the contrary, being against the total eradication of a great majority of life on earth is a justifiable stance.
Next, I would like to explain why this advertisement sends a terrible environmental message.
For one, it depicts "mother nature" as an arrogant, unlikable individual who talks down to everyone. This instills a sense of resentment against the cause of protecting the environment as a whole, with the justification of "she's an arrogant bitch, she deserves it".
Secondly, the advertisement sweeps the process of mining, refining, assembly and production of apple merchandise under the rug with bland, often unbelievable statements from overfed corporate heads. It also ignores just how harmful apple products are to the environment due to their inherent design flaws, yet at the end, the advertisement makes the viewer think that Apple has nature's approval.
Two things wrong with that.
They don't.
They had to let a plant wilt, then use CGI to bring it back to feign approval of nature. That's fraud, man.
Also, all Octavia Spencer managed to do here is to alienate actual environmental causes and sucked up to Apple's marketing department for some fast cash.
Lets see how long you can go without oxygen. Report results.
Ah right, I forget that your kind do not understand how photosynthesis works. I will explain, for the benefit of science, of course.
See, in the atmosphere, there's a molecule called carbon dioxide. One carbon atom, two oxygen atoms. Much like the dihydrogen monoxide prank in the late 90s, the normalfags have convinced themselves that carbon dioxide is EVIL and HAS to be eradicated. Facts dont matter - only that their corporate owners have riled them up into a frenzy.
However, this simple molecule is key to photosynthesis - a life-sustaining chemical reaction by which atmospheric oxygen is produced. Without carbon in the atmosphere, all photosynthesis-dependent life forms die out. That means a great majority of living creatures on earth are next. Unfortunately, that lardbucket calling herself 'mother nature' isn't aware of this either, as expected of a corporate-funded tub of fat given a soapbox.
Of course most people are against the total destruction of the planet's biosphere. Why is that a surprise? Now, your task is simple; try to go on without oxygen, a byproduct of photosynthesis for as long as possible. Why I want you to report results is simple; I want everyone to see the effects of anoxia and suffocation.
Please begin the experiment, and report your progress - minute by minute, preferably. Thank you.
lol
A small amount of this 'greenhouse effect' is absolutely necessary for life on earth. Without it, nights would plunge down into sub-zero temperatures, which as you know, is bad news for living creatures.
That's where the problem comes in. While I admit that balance is key to the continued sustenance of the ecosystem, the overfed corporate gluttons admit that eliminating carbon from the atmosphere permanently is their goal. Opposing such an omnicidal policy does not make this group "against everything".
On the contrary, being against the total eradication of a great majority of life on earth is a justifiable stance.
Next, I would like to explain why this advertisement sends a terrible environmental message.
For one, it depicts "mother nature" as an arrogant, unlikable individual who talks down to everyone. This instills a sense of resentment against the cause of protecting the environment as a whole, with the justification of "she's an arrogant bitch, she deserves it".
Secondly, the advertisement sweeps the process of mining, refining, assembly and production of apple merchandise under the rug with bland, often unbelievable statements from overfed corporate heads. It also ignores just how harmful apple products are to the environment due to their inherent design flaws, yet at the end, the advertisement makes the viewer think that Apple has nature's approval.
Two things wrong with that.
Also, all Octavia Spencer managed to do here is to alienate actual environmental causes and sucked up to Apple's marketing department for some fast cash.