4 ms·

I don’t think being a fascist has anything to do with deforestation. There’s a history of fascists wanting to preserve the “motherland”. Even views such as ecof

I don’t think being a fascist has anything to do with deforestation. There’s a history of fascists wanting to preserve the “motherland”. Even views such as ecofascism as portrayed in Linkola’s Can Life Prevail? I only care about ecologically minded governments and I don’t care about left or right. It’s the only important issue at this point.

blotter_paper 8y ago
>I only care about ecology minded governments and I don’t care about left or right. It’s the only important issue at this point. This is a rather strong statement given that it comes right after a recognition that fascist governments have historically had some ecologically friendly ideals. Are we talking about accepting literal genocide? Like, if we don't take care of the environment then everybody dies, so a fascist dictator who systematically wipes out an ethnic minority but also drastically cuts carbon emissions and restores a rainforest is a net-win? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm genuinely curious if that's what you're talking about, or if I'm parsing unintended meaning in your comment. I could see it either way.
- devmunchies 8y ago
  IF we are taking about the end of the human race, which is in fact a possibility if we continue with the current trends, then anything that could curb human appetites and populations is free game IMO. People don’t realize what’s at stake. Interpret that how you like.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    Okay, so we're talking about genocide not as an acceptable loss in exchange for sound environmental policy but rather as an environmental policy in its own right through its active reduction in the number of living humans. Glad we cleared that up. What do you think the chances of us having a lively planet in 200 years are without your proposed mass killings? What is your ideal target number for how many humans would be left after a purge, and how does it affect your guesstimates for how likely our planet is to survive? If you're willing to suggest mass killings, I suspect that you've given those sorts of questions some thought. It would be hard to justify mass killings if you didn't have some strong opinions about how likely ecological armageddon is in both scenarios. Edit: typo.
    - darkpuma 8y ago
      It seems like the worst kind of optimism to think that your cozy way of life can be preserved while also saving the planet. Electric cars and trendy vegan diets aren't good enough. You should give the arguments of deep ecologists like Linkola serious consideration, not dismiss them out of hand as unsavory. Another note: Anti-Malthusians (including a few prominent HN posters who might show up in this thread when they wake up this morning), are always quick to gleefully point out that we haven't run out of food in no small part thanks to the development of synthetic fertilizer. What they loath to mention is the ecological impact of massive population growth, and the fact that humanity has already surpassed ecosystem's carrying capacity when you consider ecological impact.
abraae 8y ago
Concur. Not living in the USA, I wish that the Democrats would concede on abortion, guns, religion, racism and everything else - as long as the one thing they do get is a majority that will start dealing with our climate emergency.
- dbtqgoat 8y ago
  That’s the one thing that will actually cost corporations money, so it’s the last thing they will address. The other things aren’t really issues to the corporate politicians, they’re just talking points.
- aaronbrethorst 8y ago
  I wish that the Democrats would concede on abortion, guns, religion, racism and everything else - as long as the one thing they do get is a majority that will start dealing with our climate emergency I don't think you have a handle on the right's agenda in the United States, nor how the left can create a majority. Conceding the issues that you describe here would take the United States further away from dealing with our climate emergency.
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  Democrats conceding on these issues will leave the US with an orange clown as president for four more years.
  - jshevek 8y ago
    These kinds of comments damage the quality of discourse on HN.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Besides which, it's the ongoing fake brouhaha about "Russian collusion" that has already guaranteed Trump's reelection. Regular people don't believe that BS anymore, and they will remember it, no matter how savagely the Ds attempt to discredit the theoretically-soon-to-be-released Mueller report. If Ds had just moved on to important matters, Trump would have little hope, but as it is he will appear to be the adult in Washington. To be clear: Trump is a corrupt person so there probably is lots of corruption to report. We all hung our hats on a particular flavor of corruption that involved him working with the Kremlin to get elected, which did not happen.

blotter_paper 8y ago

>I only care about ecology minded governments and I don’t care about left or right. It’s the only important issue at this point. This is a rather strong statement given that it comes right after a recognition that fascist governments have historically had some ecologically friendly ideals. Are we talking about accepting literal genocide? Like, if we don't take care of the environment then everybody dies, so a fascist dictator who systematically wipes out an ethnic minority but also drastically cuts carbon emissions and restores a rainforest is a net-win? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm genuinely curious if that's what you're talking about, or if I'm parsing unintended meaning in your comment. I could see it either way.

devmunchies 8y ago
IF we are taking about the end of the human race, which is in fact a possibility if we continue with the current trends, then anything that could curb human appetites and populations is free game IMO. People don’t realize what’s at stake. Interpret that how you like.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  Okay, so we're talking about genocide not as an acceptable loss in exchange for sound environmental policy but rather as an environmental policy in its own right through its active reduction in the number of living humans. Glad we cleared that up. What do you think the chances of us having a lively planet in 200 years are without your proposed mass killings? What is your ideal target number for how many humans would be left after a purge, and how does it affect your guesstimates for how likely our planet is to survive? If you're willing to suggest mass killings, I suspect that you've given those sorts of questions some thought. It would be hard to justify mass killings if you didn't have some strong opinions about how likely ecological armageddon is in both scenarios. Edit: typo.
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    It seems like the worst kind of optimism to think that your cozy way of life can be preserved while also saving the planet. Electric cars and trendy vegan diets aren't good enough. You should give the arguments of deep ecologists like Linkola serious consideration, not dismiss them out of hand as unsavory. Another note: Anti-Malthusians (including a few prominent HN posters who might show up in this thread when they wake up this morning), are always quick to gleefully point out that we haven't run out of food in no small part thanks to the development of synthetic fertilizer. What they loath to mention is the ecological impact of massive population growth, and the fact that humanity has already surpassed ecosystem's carrying capacity when you consider ecological impact.

abraae 8y ago

Concur. Not living in the USA, I wish that the Democrats would concede on abortion, guns, religion, racism and everything else - as long as the one thing they do get is a majority that will start dealing with our climate emergency.

dbtqgoat 8y ago
That’s the one thing that will actually cost corporations money, so it’s the last thing they will address. The other things aren’t really issues to the corporate politicians, they’re just talking points.
aaronbrethorst 8y ago
I wish that the Democrats would concede on abortion, guns, religion, racism and everything else - as long as the one thing they do get is a majority that will start dealing with our climate emergency I don't think you have a handle on the right's agenda in the United States, nor how the left can create a majority. Conceding the issues that you describe here would take the United States further away from dealing with our climate emergency.
spiderfarmer 8y ago
Democrats conceding on these issues will leave the US with an orange clown as president for four more years.
- jshevek 8y ago
  These kinds of comments damage the quality of discourse on HN.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Besides which, it's the ongoing fake brouhaha about "Russian collusion" that has already guaranteed Trump's reelection. Regular people don't believe that BS anymore, and they will remember it, no matter how savagely the Ds attempt to discredit the theoretically-soon-to-be-released Mueller report. If Ds had just moved on to important matters, Trump would have little hope, but as it is he will appear to be the adult in Washington. To be clear: Trump is a corrupt person so there probably is lots of corruption to report. We all hung our hats on a particular flavor of corruption that involved him working with the Kremlin to get elected, which did not happen.