3 ms·
Well goverments depend on consumer capitalism for tax money = financibg their debts. So the narrative we get is that we could continue consuming with some adjus
by chewz 8y ago
Well goverments depend on consumer capitalism for tax money = financibg their debts. So the narrative we get is that we could continue consuming with some adjustments to current model (electric cars in pleace of combustion engines, no plastic bags or cotton buds).
Saddly it seems this won't be enough. If we want to save the planet we should alter the model drastically. But imagine:
- bikes in place of cars
- no more long distance travel
- no more cotton clothes that travel half the world, are purchased of of boredom and land in a trash next season. Spin your own thread, make clothes yourself, repair not throw away
- no more fancy food from all over the world, growing your own in the garden
- no more new apartments and concrete
- dark cities after 10pm
Just a few examples. But who will choose living like this? Let us enjoy musin on Titanic.
- parasubvert 8y agoExcept that urban multi-unit dwelling (apartments, concrete) is far better for the environment than suburban or rural single-unit homes with gardens.
- anonuser123456 8y agoI'm not sure concrete is better than gardens. Is density better than sprawl? Absolutely. But it would be better to integrate nature with density.
- parasubvert 8y agoGardens are fine, integrating nature is fine, and not incompatible with high density / concrete. The issue is the wastefulness and carbon emissions of sprawl, fuel, etc. that are common in less-dense areas. A return to the old-days isn't necessarily good, is all I'm saying... Burning wood for example is worse for the environment than coal or gas. We got away with it in olden times because there were so few people.