Human caused environmental devastation didn’t start in the 1600s, capitalism did. I don’t think humans are a virus, but I don’t think that abolishing capitalism is the only critical step in preventing environmental catastrophe.
That’s an a-historical point of view. There have been several environmental catastrophes, including some causing massive climactic shifts introduced by prehistoric humans, some of them are documented in 1491, by Charles Mann. Poor farming practices, including some that have been practiced for thousands of years, are a huge factor in desertification. I completely agree that the rate and scale of environmental catastrophe is new, but the risk of it and tendency towards it is not. While I think capitalism is ABSOLUTELY the single greatest barrier to addressing the catastrophe, the scale and speed of that catastrophe could be just as easily tied to population growth as the emergence of capitalism.
Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by
the farming of animal products,
the production and consumption of energy, and
the extraction and transformation of material resources,
can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be a vegan who doesn’t take vacations, use air conditioning, fly on airplanes, or drive a car? I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.
Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.
EDIT: the reply below completely ignores my question. Very few people seem to actually give a shit about the environment. It’s all just ideological posturing. And that is why we are fucked.
We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 100 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory abattoirs. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is? It’s not. So…
You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism (literally the only way to save the environment) unfortunately has nothing to do with our economic system.
Every 3 calories of beef require at least 100 calories of legumes.
Worse still, the average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots.
Add the methane and the nitrogenous runoff, and you have an ecological catastrophe.
you’re arguing for a vote-with-your-wallet approach
You quoted someone else and then accused me of arguing for something I’m absolutely not. Did you reply to the wrong person? For the benefit of anyone who stumbles over this bizarre exchange, my question is super simple:
How will you convince 8 billion people to dramatically lower their standard of living?
Currently we are consuming about 2 earths worth of resources (if everyone lived like Americans it would be 20 earths). Obviously capitalism makes this worse, but the question remains. What then?
Once we abolish capitalism, this will raise standards of living. More people will want cars and air-conditioning and so on. More people will want to eat meat. So what’s the plan?
we are producing 1000 times the food we need
no we are not
You’re technically correct. It’s closer to 100, but my point stands.
We know and can develop superior methods in agriculture, energy production and recycling material resources. The rapid transformation of the economy to make use of these superior methods will require state intervention and economic planning like never before seen in human history.
It is much easier to limit resource use when a certain segment of the population (the bourgeoise) are not consuming resources at 100s of times the rate of the ordinary person.
Eliminating advertising will reduce the pressure for overconsumption.
They would simply consume less and not be as driven to consume. Capitalism drives up the consumption to ridiculous levels, greed is not actually good. We could focus the economy on needs first and ensure it exists so people can still acquire goods and services in exchange for money so no one is working for nothing. But no more wealth accumulation into the stratosphere. There’s a lot that would need to change
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s woefully inadequate. We need between 2 and 20 earths just to maintain our current standard of living, and keep in mind this number rises as poverty falls.
The only and I mean the only solutions that can support our absurd population is
veganism
tech advancements bordering on magic
It’s just math. I wish things were otherwise, I really do. But that’s what we need to save the rainforests and oceans and wild fauna that are still clinging to existence. Everything else is ideology.
Human caused environmental devastation didn’t start in the 1600s, capitalism did. I don’t think humans are a virus, but I don’t think that abolishing capitalism is the only critical step in preventing environmental catastrophe.
We’ve been here 200,000 years, we’ve been farming for the last 12,000 of those. Environmental destruction is, reletively, a very very new phenomenon.
That’s an a-historical point of view. There have been several environmental catastrophes, including some causing massive climactic shifts introduced by prehistoric humans, some of them are documented in 1491, by Charles Mann. Poor farming practices, including some that have been practiced for thousands of years, are a huge factor in desertification. I completely agree that the rate and scale of environmental catastrophe is new, but the risk of it and tendency towards it is not. While I think capitalism is ABSOLUTELY the single greatest barrier to addressing the catastrophe, the scale and speed of that catastrophe could be just as easily tied to population growth as the emergence of capitalism.
Not to mention how all megafauna got extinct wherever modern humans showed up
deleted by creator
Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by
can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be a vegan who doesn’t take vacations, use air conditioning, fly on airplanes, or drive a car? I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.
Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.
EDIT: the reply below completely ignores my question. Very few people seem to actually give a shit about the environment. It’s all just ideological posturing. And that is why we are fucked.
deleted by creator
We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 100 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory abattoirs. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is? It’s not. So…
You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism (literally the only way to save the environment) unfortunately has nothing to do with our economic system.
Voluptas sed aut ut porro eius dolor. Nobis optio eaque architecto. Possimus illum itaque harum nulla doloribus. Beatae fuga labore quo.
You quoted someone else and then accused me of arguing for something I’m absolutely not. Did you reply to the wrong person? For the benefit of anyone who stumbles over this bizarre exchange, my question is super simple:
How will you convince 8 billion people to dramatically lower their standard of living?
Currently we are consuming about 2 earths worth of resources (if everyone lived like Americans it would be 20 earths). Obviously capitalism makes this worse, but the question remains. What then?
Once we abolish capitalism, this will raise standards of living. More people will want cars and air-conditioning and so on. More people will want to eat meat. So what’s the plan?
You’re technically correct. It’s closer to 100, but my point stands.
deleted by creator
We know and can develop superior methods in agriculture, energy production and recycling material resources. The rapid transformation of the economy to make use of these superior methods will require state intervention and economic planning like never before seen in human history.
It is much easier to limit resource use when a certain segment of the population (the bourgeoise) are not consuming resources at 100s of times the rate of the ordinary person.
Eliminating advertising will reduce the pressure for overconsumption.
They would simply consume less and not be as driven to consume. Capitalism drives up the consumption to ridiculous levels, greed is not actually good. We could focus the economy on needs first and ensure it exists so people can still acquire goods and services in exchange for money so no one is working for nothing. But no more wealth accumulation into the stratosphere. There’s a lot that would need to change
deleted by creator
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s woefully inadequate. We need between 2 and 20 earths just to maintain our current standard of living, and keep in mind this number rises as poverty falls.
The only and I mean the only solutions that can support our absurd population is
It’s just math. I wish things were otherwise, I really do. But that’s what we need to save the rainforests and oceans and wild fauna that are still clinging to existence. Everything else is ideology.