4 ms·

That’s not true. If we could even just scale back global consumption of resources to 1960 levels, we’d be able to have a sustainable global civilization with en

That’s not true. If we could even just scale back global consumption of resources to 1960 levels, we’d be able to have a sustainable global civilization with enough of a buffer that we wouldn’t have to impose a hard cap on individual consumers. Instead, capitalism depends on constant growth to sustain itself, otherwise share prices won’t go up, which leads to all sorts of things that the capital class considers bad. Edit: Oh, I see we'd rather just make this argument go away rather than address it, still. This is why we can't have nice things, y'all.

h0l0cube 6y ago
> scale back global consumption of resources to 1960 levels Probably more than that we can't sustain population growth like we have over the last century. Blaming capitalism is easy, but the more nuanced, difficult, and important conversation about population still languishes as taboo.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  > Probably more than that we can't sustain population growth like we have over the last century And that's a problem how? Fuck taboos when the continuation of global civilization depends on it. It's not like we've got another planet to fuck off to after we use this one up.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    It makes a bunch of people feel uncomfortable. Those who've had children, those who want children, and those hoping for grandchildren. That and government, and most of the economic order, is interested in increasing GDP, available productivity, and consumer spending. I've seen more principled environmentalists raise the issue, only to be shot down by their peers for their 'abhorrent' views. Edit: Oh, and there's a conspiracy theory that floats around white supremacy groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theo... I hardly think white people will go extinct, but that might be a concern for some people in the western world. The best way I've encountered to reduce population growth is actually to empower women, particularly in the developing world or for poorer populations. Having better education and employment opportunities for women strongly correlates with fewer children (and of course those children will be vastly better off, as will national GDP with a better skilled labour pool)... but even this idea could be seen as 'imperialist' or 'colonialist' if such an agenda is driven by the western world, even if it's feminist and environmentalist at heart.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      Well, it should make them uncomfortable, but more for the fact that those children and grandchildren need a fucking world to live in. I actually posted the same thing about empowering women in another comment here. Call me imperialist if you want while I help save the planet. I don't mind.
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        > Call me imperialist if you want while I help save the planet. I don't mind. Not sure why you're projecting your resentment towards me given them I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. <rant>But moreover, such a tone can be hurtful to your message. Even if their interlocutor is right, people loathe condescension, and it can often galvanize them into their cherished bad ideas. Not everyone is acting in bad faith. Understand peoples' motivations and fears, and then you might have a path to persuade them you have the better idea. But also learn where you might be wrong, or where the subject is more complicated and nuanced than you've conceived it to be.</rant>
        pmiller2 6y ago
        Oh, that wasn't intended as a personal jab. It was a response to what you said about these ideas being considered imperialist and such. If anyone else comes up with a better and more workable idea to save the planet and stave off global societal collapse, I'm all ears. No arrogance here, and no condescension intended.

h0l0cube 6y ago

> scale back global consumption of resources to 1960 levels Probably more than that we can't sustain population growth like we have over the last century. Blaming capitalism is easy, but the more nuanced, difficult, and important conversation about population still languishes as taboo.

pmiller2 6y ago
> Probably more than that we can't sustain population growth like we have over the last century And that's a problem how? Fuck taboos when the continuation of global civilization depends on it. It's not like we've got another planet to fuck off to after we use this one up.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  It makes a bunch of people feel uncomfortable. Those who've had children, those who want children, and those hoping for grandchildren. That and government, and most of the economic order, is interested in increasing GDP, available productivity, and consumer spending. I've seen more principled environmentalists raise the issue, only to be shot down by their peers for their 'abhorrent' views. Edit: Oh, and there's a conspiracy theory that floats around white supremacy groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_genocide_conspiracy_theo... I hardly think white people will go extinct, but that might be a concern for some people in the western world. The best way I've encountered to reduce population growth is actually to empower women, particularly in the developing world or for poorer populations. Having better education and employment opportunities for women strongly correlates with fewer children (and of course those children will be vastly better off, as will national GDP with a better skilled labour pool)... but even this idea could be seen as 'imperialist' or 'colonialist' if such an agenda is driven by the western world, even if it's feminist and environmentalist at heart.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Well, it should make them uncomfortable, but more for the fact that those children and grandchildren need a fucking world to live in. I actually posted the same thing about empowering women in another comment here. Call me imperialist if you want while I help save the planet. I don't mind.
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      > Call me imperialist if you want while I help save the planet. I don't mind. Not sure why you're projecting your resentment towards me given them I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint. <rant>But moreover, such a tone can be hurtful to your message. Even if their interlocutor is right, people loathe condescension, and it can often galvanize them into their cherished bad ideas. Not everyone is acting in bad faith. Understand peoples' motivations and fears, and then you might have a path to persuade them you have the better idea. But also learn where you might be wrong, or where the subject is more complicated and nuanced than you've conceived it to be.</rant>
      - pmiller2 6y ago
        Oh, that wasn't intended as a personal jab. It was a response to what you said about these ideas being considered imperialist and such. If anyone else comes up with a better and more workable idea to save the planet and stave off global societal collapse, I'm all ears. No arrogance here, and no condescension intended.