4 ms·
I suspect you're going to get downvoted to hell, but you're right. And, the fact is, neither of these points are compatible with capitalism. There's also a po
by pmiller2 6y ago
I suspect you're going to get downvoted to hell, but you're right. And, the fact is, neither of these points are compatible with capitalism.
There's also a point 6, which is reduce and then stabilize the global population at sustainable levels. Having fewer humans around is simply the easiest way to consume less while allowing a reasonable standard of living.
- AstralStorm 6y agoStuff including transportation resisted is but 15% of energy, and carbon footprint, max.
- pmiller2 6y agoI don't understand.
- fastball 6y agoNope, wrong mentality. Humans are by nature pro-growth. Any policy which works against that needs to account for it, which they never do. Also populations stabilize when you reach a certain standard of living, which is exactly why the environmental mentality should be pro-growth – get to that point as soon as possible, and use that extra manpower to get to carbon neutral as soon as possible with the three things I listed. You don't need 4, 5, and 6. Simpler plans are always better.
- pmiller2 6y agoNo, capitalism is the problem. You can't fix capitalism with more capitalism. Growth at all costs is what is killing us. Populations don't stabilize due to growth. They stabilize when the standard of living reaches a point where having many children stops making sense. If only there was a way we could share our prosperity with everyone.... hmm. Is that called capitalism? Why, no, it is not. We're not a virus on the Earth; we're cancer. Cancer only kills people if it grows too fast. For example, many men die with prostate cancer, while relatively few die of it.
- kodah 6y ago> No, capitalism is the problem. Blanket statements like this almost never help. They readily fall in danger of presenting a moralistic or normalizing argument in debate, which require zero baseline. If you're going to debate people you need to provide an actual solution that doesn't just say, "stop what you're doing", "you're the problem", etc... Conservation may have worked sometime in the 60's or earlier, however, economies would've stalled and our present would likely be quite different. It is possible to engineer our way out of climate change, but it will take the best minds being 100% committed to it and incentives that align to it.
- pmiller2 6y agoThe solution is ecosocialism.
- fastball 6y agoSocialism will never work before you get to a post-scarcity economy. Guess what the best way to get to a post-scarcity economy is? You guessed it, growth. Innovation. Progress. Not stalling it.
- pmiller2 6y agoWe already have enough wealth in the world to share. There's no need to continue oppressing the global south in order to fuel growth that's going to kill us. I may have agreed with you before capitalism pissed away our future. But, we just don't have the time left, and we must sacrifice in the short term to save the long term. These are facts. If we don't take drastic action now, climate change will abolish capitalism for us in a few decades. Is that what you want?
- 0-_-0 6y agoWhat would you replace capitalism with? Would the unintended sideeffects of that system be much worse than capitalism?