*Fewer humans, and that would actually solve most of our problems, it’s just that we need to be more specific about which humans we get rid of. Specifically billionaires/unchecked capitalists.
There were also infinitely fewer people concerned about humans’ ecological impact and no effective way to change that. Now we have millions and millions of people all over the world worried about it and we are all interconnected via the internet. We caused a mass extinction with a million of us in disparate tribes, just imagine what we could accomplish if all 8 billion of us actually worked together toward changing the world for the better! Unfortunately we’re still stuck in stupid tribes, and the most powerful tribe that controls every aspect of life in every other tribe is obsessed with destroying the Earth at a never-ending, ever-increasing pace. Here in America, our ruling class is literally trying to bring about the apocalypse. But naw, getting rid of them couldn’t possibly lead to any kind of benefit, we better let them burn it all down in the name of line-go-up 🙄🙄🙄
wouldn’t say echochambers are immune, maybe communities where users know each other. like if anyone who knew me read it, they would immediately realize it’s sarcasm. but without any context, sarcasm is indistinguishable from a stupid idea.
wonder how many times I’ve agreed with a nazi, because he was being sarcastic and I didn’t realize.
The easy scapegoat oversimplifies the problem, which goes beyond & predates capitalism.
Though exterminating all of humanity is one way to achieve sustainability, it doesn’t necessarily require it.
So far, however, humanity has reached living standards beyond subsistence only by consuming resources at unsustainable levels faster than the planet can replenish, and that has been true regardless of economic system.
Even when living at subsistence levels, humanity has likely caused mass extinction events.
Although governments are far more able than individuals and firms acting singly to take action to protect the environment, they often fail to do so. The centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe, where governments controlled production, had a particularly poor record on pollution control. Per capita mortality from air pollution in Eastern Europe (outside the EU) and China remains high relative to the EU and North America.
In particular, the Soviet economy—with constitutional guarantees to continuously improve living standards & steadily grow productive forces—caused disproportionately worse ecological damage than the US’s.
All economic systems have the same capacity to degrade the environment & deplete stocks of natural resources.
Without adequate policies to protect the environment, improving & maintaining living standards with the continuous economic growth necessary to do that threatens the environment.
Moreover, human activity before capitalism has led to extinctions of megafauna, plants, & animals dependent on those plants.
The quaternary megafauna extinction was likely driven by overhunting by humans.
Those extinctions & increased fires coinciding with the arrival of humanity to Australia transformed the ecosystem from mixed rainforest to drier landscapes.
Aboriginal landscape burning
may have caused the extinction of some fire-sensitive species of plants and animals dependent upon infrequently burnt habitats
More recently, they killed off the elephant bird likely due to major environmental alterations & overconsumption of their eggs.
Until humanity starts living sustainably, they are the problem.
A socialist society can be ecologically devastating. But, unlike capitalist one, it doesn’t have to be.
Capitalism pursues infinite growth in a finite world. As long as unsustainable practices deliver you more (which is extremely often the case) - they will be pursued, and if you block them all, it will cripple the economy as it will lower the expectation of profit. Capitalism breeds practices like planned obsolescence, aggressive marketing and tracking to fuel overconsumption, it promotes a lavish lifestyle - all to ensure the monetary flow necessary to keep such economy afloat.
Socialist society is more adaptive in this regard. You can ramp up production and overconsumption, Earth be damned, or you can slow down and invest in long-term, sustainable solutions, even at the expense of short-term returns. The latter, however, means getting less competitive internationally, which is exactly the sacrifice the socialist countries of the past, including USSR, were not willing to make.
*Fewer humans, and that would actually solve most of our problems, it’s just that we need to be more specific about which humans we get rid of. Specifically billionaires/unchecked capitalists.
There were fewer humans a century ago. and there were no human caused ecological crisis back then.
it isn’t the number of people really, but the exploitative economic system they use.
/s!!! /s!!!
btw, humans managed the extinction of megafauna when where were around a million humans 10 thousand years ago.
Ha ha you got me in the first half there
There were also infinitely fewer people concerned about humans’ ecological impact and no effective way to change that. Now we have millions and millions of people all over the world worried about it and we are all interconnected via the internet. We caused a mass extinction with a million of us in disparate tribes, just imagine what we could accomplish if all 8 billion of us actually worked together toward changing the world for the better! Unfortunately we’re still stuck in stupid tribes, and the most powerful tribe that controls every aspect of life in every other tribe is obsessed with destroying the Earth at a never-ending, ever-increasing pace. Here in America, our ruling class is literally trying to bring about the apocalypse. But naw, getting rid of them couldn’t possibly lead to any kind of benefit, we better let them burn it all down in the name of line-go-up 🙄🙄🙄
No human caused ecological crises during the height of industrialization? Sure bud.
Go check on the Aral Sea to get an idea of what a non-exploitative economic system can do.
sorry. I’ll take all the responsibility of forgetting the “/s”.
thought it was clearly sarcasm, because duh.
carry on.
was trying to make it a clearly obvious point against that argument.
Sarcasm is dead and .ml killed it.
I honestly believe that the more extreme .ml users will be chasing off new users coming to the fediverse, since they have the largest communities.
Which is a shame.
Deadpan sarcasm doesn’t translate well from a verbal medium to a written medium.
Unless you’re in an echo chamber…
wouldn’t say echochambers are immune, maybe communities where users know each other. like if anyone who knew me read it, they would immediately realize it’s sarcasm. but without any context, sarcasm is indistinguishable from a stupid idea.
wonder how many times I’ve agreed with a nazi, because he was being sarcastic and I didn’t realize.
Your username should have given me a clue
Cope
The easy scapegoat oversimplifies the problem, which goes beyond & predates capitalism. Though exterminating all of humanity is one way to achieve sustainability, it doesn’t necessarily require it. So far, however, humanity has reached living standards beyond subsistence only by consuming resources at unsustainable levels faster than the planet can replenish, and that has been true regardless of economic system. Even when living at subsistence levels, humanity has likely caused mass extinction events.
From a comment to a similar post
Until humanity starts living sustainably, they are the problem.
A socialist society can be ecologically devastating. But, unlike capitalist one, it doesn’t have to be.
Capitalism pursues infinite growth in a finite world. As long as unsustainable practices deliver you more (which is extremely often the case) - they will be pursued, and if you block them all, it will cripple the economy as it will lower the expectation of profit. Capitalism breeds practices like planned obsolescence, aggressive marketing and tracking to fuel overconsumption, it promotes a lavish lifestyle - all to ensure the monetary flow necessary to keep such economy afloat.
Socialist society is more adaptive in this regard. You can ramp up production and overconsumption, Earth be damned, or you can slow down and invest in long-term, sustainable solutions, even at the expense of short-term returns. The latter, however, means getting less competitive internationally, which is exactly the sacrifice the socialist countries of the past, including USSR, were not willing to make.
'Someone tried once and did it wrong, so it must be impossible. 🤷♂️"
Cool vibes, lack of data, & copium.
Nice Oxford comma! Unnice lack of contribution
Marx was talking about capitalists raping the soil to the point of destruction in 1860 lil pup