Wouldn’t we need to exploit our planet for material for a growing population regardless of our species economic system? It’s more of an issue of degree, no?
Education and quality of life improvements lower birth-rates. We have enough resources and the logistical means to ensure all peoples have access to high quality of life. We choose to deny this based on a capitalist profit seeking model, where we over allocate resources to the most wealthy and strip them from the least.
Some exploitation is necessary, in the same way a bison exploits the grass.
But different economic systems can generate vastly different levels of environmental destruction. For example, our system encourages planned obsolescence, fast fashion, and overall disposable goods. There are countless materials we don’t recycle simply because it’s not profitable to do so. You can build a system on a more circular economy, where new raw materials are only harvested if recycling can’t provide.
Doesn’t matter. Both the first argument and yours presuppose the internal value of bio diversity detached from humanity, which is weird.
Nature is valuable insofar we can coexist with it. If climate change were driven by the factors independent of our actions, our collective goal would have been to defend humanity and not LDAR.
I cannot prove it, but vibes are that this sentiment is coming from years and years of anti climate action propaganda.
I don’t understand how you envision our species coexisting in equilibrium with our planet. Are you suggesting that we give up our resource hungry high technology and live closer to what the Amish are trying to do?
At our current level of industrial capabilities we could provide a standard of living for all humans at around the level of an eastern European country. That sounds bad if you live in America, but it sounds like an impossibility if you live in the 3rd world. The truth is capitalism creates these disparities and prevents the study of more equitable technologies.
The future you’re talking about won’t be in your own hands. Technocapital will make those decisions about how to exploit the planet for you, and population stability, quality of life, and economic, measured use of resources (ie literally “conservative”) will all be secondary, tertiary, or even more distant goals. There will not be a great flash of light where turning the planet into a gray brick will yield a positive singularity. When we’ve used the world up, it’s gone, but you and I will be left alive for a litle while to writhe like flayed worms in hell. Maybe another species can guzzle up our bones in several million years to make a computer do unnecessary math calculations with the hopes of achieving infinite growth?
I don’t understand how you envision our species coexisting in equilibrium with our planet.
Because I don’t want to discuss this. This is a vile path. It’s like a debate on the fact that jews disproportionately control more capital than other ethnicities or not.
Think about how much shit is wasted on the daily, and then think about if we just didn’t do that. Tons of shit nobody wants is manufactured and destined for landfills for no reason other than to make a few billionaires some pocket change. Now think about all the plastic fucking packaging.
We could be doing shit in a sustainable manner. But no, capitalism.
It’s the deliberate choice to use processes over more sustainable options, like using gas and coal instead of cleaner solutions like nuclear. Other examples would be outsourcing processes that we could do cleanly to the 3rd world because it’s cheaper.
Wouldn’t we need to exploit our planet for material for a growing population regardless of our species economic system? It’s more of an issue of degree, no?
Education and quality of life improvements lower birth-rates. We have enough resources and the logistical means to ensure all peoples have access to high quality of life. We choose to deny this based on a capitalist profit seeking model, where we over allocate resources to the most wealthy and strip them from the least.
Preach
Some exploitation is necessary, in the same way a bison exploits the grass.
But different economic systems can generate vastly different levels of environmental destruction. For example, our system encourages planned obsolescence, fast fashion, and overall disposable goods. There are countless materials we don’t recycle simply because it’s not profitable to do so. You can build a system on a more circular economy, where new raw materials are only harvested if recycling can’t provide.
Doesn’t matter. Both the first argument and yours presuppose the internal value of bio diversity detached from humanity, which is weird.
Nature is valuable insofar we can coexist with it. If climate change were driven by the factors independent of our actions, our collective goal would have been to defend humanity and not LDAR.
I cannot prove it, but vibes are that this sentiment is coming from years and years of anti climate action propaganda.
Do you mean to say that human life is the only life with value, and all other life gains value by virtue of its positive relationship with human life?
I don’t understand how you envision our species coexisting in equilibrium with our planet. Are you suggesting that we give up our resource hungry high technology and live closer to what the Amish are trying to do?
At our current level of industrial capabilities we could provide a standard of living for all humans at around the level of an eastern European country. That sounds bad if you live in America, but it sounds like an impossibility if you live in the 3rd world. The truth is capitalism creates these disparities and prevents the study of more equitable technologies.
The future you’re talking about won’t be in your own hands. Technocapital will make those decisions about how to exploit the planet for you, and population stability, quality of life, and economic, measured use of resources (ie literally “conservative”) will all be secondary, tertiary, or even more distant goals. There will not be a great flash of light where turning the planet into a gray brick will yield a positive singularity. When we’ve used the world up, it’s gone, but you and I will be left alive for a litle while to writhe like flayed worms in hell. Maybe another species can guzzle up our bones in several million years to make a computer do unnecessary math calculations with the hopes of achieving infinite growth?
Because I don’t want to discuss this. This is a vile path. It’s like a debate on the fact that jews disproportionately control more capital than other ethnicities or not.
You don’t want to discuss your ideal vision of humanity? That’s odd.
Not in a context of eco fascism
Think about how much shit is wasted on the daily, and then think about if we just didn’t do that. Tons of shit nobody wants is manufactured and destined for landfills for no reason other than to make a few billionaires some pocket change. Now think about all the plastic fucking packaging.
We could be doing shit in a sustainable manner. But no, capitalism.
It’s the deliberate choice to use processes over more sustainable options, like using gas and coal instead of cleaner solutions like nuclear. Other examples would be outsourcing processes that we could do cleanly to the 3rd world because it’s cheaper.