4 ms·

Not that i have any faith in political parties, but i disagree with your analysis entirely. Green capitalism is not gonna get us out of this dire situation. For

Not that i have any faith in political parties, but i disagree with your analysis entirely. Green capitalism is not gonna get us out of this dire situation. For the reasons you point out, techno-utopist solutionism is actually making the situation a lot worse (extraction/refinement of more minerals, more overall industrial activity to achieve the transition, extra hardware we don't know how to recycle). The more we try to make it look like industrial society can be green, the more everyone is going to consume and that's not sustainable in the long run. We need actual degrowth now, if not yesterday. And i'm not saying we global northerners should moralize countries like Brazil or India about their industrial practices: no, we need to develop our own self-sustenance for food, housing, and medicine in the here and now... and stop pillaging/exploiting the 3rd world as our industrial backyard where all chemical atrocious pollution is permitted. Nuclear is part of the tech pipe dream that the oligarchy is promising us, of an ever abundance of free/clean energy. But the reality on the ground, from mining sites to storage facilities, looks very different. And who cares where your electricity comes from if even the most mundane devices come with electronics and batteries? Can't i buy a fucking car without having at least a 100 micro-controllers inside?! If you want to save the environment, make it a criminal offense to sell a product without having at least minimum 50y warranty/service. That's how you change things: the planet doesn't care if your energy has more or less carbon if you keep on producing disposable phones that's gonna be broken/obsolete two years from now. We have to stop this madness. The same goes with the housing industry and many other industries, believe it or not: the Romans and the Aztecs built low-tech structures that will outlive us all, and multi-billion dollars corporations can't even build stuff that stays in decent shape for more than 10 years (or rather, they won't for financial reasons). So fine, be angry all you want at people like me who promote actual environmentalism. Maybe we're too much "nature-worshipping" to be heard by the psychopaths in power who already ruined everything. I personally have zero faith in the system and structures that have taken us so far, and have made sure that every attempt to diverge from the worst possible timeline has been sabotaged. I come from France, where the Rainbow Warrior was sunk by secret services, and the COP21 mass demonstrations were all canceled using the indecent pretext of so-called "terrorist" attacks and State of Emergency... The people in power will never help us save the planet: we have to make them.

Manuel_D 4y ago
> Nuclear is part of the tech pipe dream that the oligarchy is promising us, of an ever abundance of free/clean energy. But the reality on the ground, from mining sites to storage facilities, looks very different. This could not be further from the truth. Nuclear power has the lowest rate of deaths per unit of energy. Uranium mining does have environmental impact, but it's so energy dense that very little of it has to be mined. If "actual environmentalism" means rejecting industrialized society then we're doomed. The Romans built a stable society, sure. But it was a society with a huge portion of enslaved people, and little opportunity outside of the elite. If I have to choose between climate change and reverting to an agrarian preindustrial society I'll pick climate change without hesitation.
scottLobster 4y ago
Degrowth? Luddite movements have a pretty abysmal history, mostly because they tend to produce comparatively awful living conditions for those who follow them. Those low-tech structures you prize consumed a lot of forests to heat, all with low energy density, high carbon-emission, high cost of labor wood. Never mind all the other downsides of pre-industrial society. I agree we should refocus the economy on more durable goods and housing, that's part of the solution. I'm not sure where your criticism of Nuclear is coming from though. It has the smallest mining footprint, all the nuclear waste dumps in the world could fit in an incredibly small area compared to waste products from other power sources. Small modular reactor designs basically solve the waste issue by being self-contained for their entire lifetimes. Nuclear is also incredibly safe statistically speaking, and produces no pollution in its power generation. Your last paragraph is telling as well. For those who think like you there's a social-revolution element to combating climate change. You see things as "already ruined", and have declared the "psychopaths in power" the absolute enemy standing in the way of "saving the planet". So you have all the resentful psychological license you need to burn the house down, with the rest of us in it, just to stick it to the psychopaths, and that's your primary objective. I'd rather save the house, with everyone. I'd like the psychopaths gone as much as anyone, but if you think de-industrializing will get rid of them, you haven't read much history.

Manuel_D 4y ago

> Nuclear is part of the tech pipe dream that the oligarchy is promising us, of an ever abundance of free/clean energy. But the reality on the ground, from mining sites to storage facilities, looks very different. This could not be further from the truth. Nuclear power has the lowest rate of deaths per unit of energy. Uranium mining does have environmental impact, but it's so energy dense that very little of it has to be mined. If "actual environmentalism" means rejecting industrialized society then we're doomed. The Romans built a stable society, sure. But it was a society with a huge portion of enslaved people, and little opportunity outside of the elite. If I have to choose between climate change and reverting to an agrarian preindustrial society I'll pick climate change without hesitation.

scottLobster 4y ago

Degrowth? Luddite movements have a pretty abysmal history, mostly because they tend to produce comparatively awful living conditions for those who follow them. Those low-tech structures you prize consumed a lot of forests to heat, all with low energy density, high carbon-emission, high cost of labor wood. Never mind all the other downsides of pre-industrial society. I agree we should refocus the economy on more durable goods and housing, that's part of the solution. I'm not sure where your criticism of Nuclear is coming from though. It has the smallest mining footprint, all the nuclear waste dumps in the world could fit in an incredibly small area compared to waste products from other power sources. Small modular reactor designs basically solve the waste issue by being self-contained for their entire lifetimes. Nuclear is also incredibly safe statistically speaking, and produces no pollution in its power generation. Your last paragraph is telling as well. For those who think like you there's a social-revolution element to combating climate change. You see things as "already ruined", and have declared the "psychopaths in power" the absolute enemy standing in the way of "saving the planet". So you have all the resentful psychological license you need to burn the house down, with the rest of us in it, just to stick it to the psychopaths, and that's your primary objective. I'd rather save the house, with everyone. I'd like the psychopaths gone as much as anyone, but if you think de-industrializing will get rid of them, you haven't read much history.