Sickeningly true. Satire and irony used to give me some breathing space and a way of communicating intelligently. Both are dead and gone. Edgy comedy? Forget about it. Guess I'll just have to snicker at the reality then. Look at them little shits go at it!
Reality is borderline unbelievable dark comedy, just take a look around... For gods sake did everybody forget that the president RAPED A CHILD? anything else he does is minor.
Just ignore all the humans who naturally behave otherwise. Actually they’re hard to ignore so they’ve been eliminated. Oh no it turns out all humans behave in a wide range of ways. Can we engineer society so the only ways to behave line up with “our human nature”? Good.
Wait why is suicide, violent deviance, and all manner of mental and physical ill health out of control???
Regardless of how different people behave, the groups who are more aggressive and better at physical violence will come to dominate, every time. Most of us can only pretend otherwise because we happen to live in a state of relative peace (for now).
I see. From where does this culture of domination and violence originate if there’s so many different configurations of humans even within cultures of violence and domination?
That's a fascinating question. My ignorant notion is that this has been in us since we left Africa, if not earlier, and the current mass extinction began at that time. Some of the first extinctions were the Neanderthals and other human species.
I'm not sure what you're referring to - climatic changes that helped enable the expansion of Sapiens into new regions? Are you aware of the vast scale of extinctions that occurred as a result of that expansion? Do you think that was just some kind of incredible coincidence? I get that most people don't wanna acknowledge the implications, but I'd hope that in this subreddit of all places that people are willing to look reality in the face.
So first of all there have always been people in Africa since there were people anywhere. We didn’t “leave” there. Many of those societies practiced forms of subsistence that kept their metabolism in balance with nature. We have some of their innovations to this day. Things like raised beds, mulching, sustainable forms of irrigation, and so on, are all African innovations that suggest we are not naturally rapacious or doomed to overshoot.
I ask about other places because in, say, India, similar practices proliferated. Your perspective is only really applicable to North Africa and parts of the Levant. Those are places where hierarchical and centralized states emerged.
It’s ironic because based on the very thing you’re bringing up, prehistory, we should target the state and violent hierarchies rather than something like “human nature”.
Because unlike other animal populations, humans can communicate and imagine and plan. Can you think of any other differences between humans and other animals that might produce different outcomes on long timescales?
You might as well say that other animal populations are doomed to remain on this planet so why not humans, and yet.
So, as just one of myriad examples, you don't consider the Aztec empire to be a hierarchical and centralized state? It seems like you're engaged in motivated reasoning.
The Mexica and Inca and even less densely populated “New World” Indigenous nations like the Haida all had states or proto states. The Haudenosaunee even had a confederacy that helped inspire the US constitution. We have examples of that covered in ancient Egypt and to a degree Sumeria so they don’t exactly need to be brought up as evidence that people form such structures, do they?
The point is not that people do not form states naturally or unnaturally. It’s that there’s no determinism in our natures. We can live in states or as hermits or as huge networks of families subsisting off food forests that we cultivate for centuries. These are all in our nature. Human nature is therefore not the target.
I'm at the same conclusion. If you're not good at war, then you're removed for a group who is. The Cathars were a peaceful alternative take on Christianity that started to gain traction. Look where they are now.
Sums it up in one sentence .... it is always driven by our nature.
What he says is very much in line with my own view. All living things are evolved to be prosperous (i.e. multiply and dominate). Once, a species becomes successful and dominating, it will invariably change the environment. Because evolution works in much slower time scale of this change, the said species will doom themselves by changing the environment too much and go extinct. Wait enough time, new life will emerge and the cycle repeats.
It has already happened before. The early life on earth excreted oxygen and poisoned themselves but gave rise to us. We are just doing the same thing. It will happen again, again and again.
We should not forget that the change of ontology from primarily animist to dualist domination narratives was a deliberate, violent development.
I'm not trying to sugarcoat subsistence economies/lifestyles or pretend that there weren't any problems between indigenous populations and their environments but humans had the capacity to approach a life of balance with their surroundings for the longest time. Even the peasant revolutions in medieval Europe caused a significant ecological improvement before they were crushed by the rise of capitalism.
This isn't primarily a human problem but first and foremost a problem of capitalism and the narrative of having the right or even duty to dominate and exploit nature.
Scandinavian social democracy here. I've read some Graeber for political escapism, but I just can't get into his view of the majority of people as these inherently well-meaning, social creatures forced into an violent system. People here don't have to worry about their safety for voting the least assholist candidates. Yet their majority votes the moderate right or the populists, time and time again, no matter how fucked the climate scene or the society is getting. Never in history have people been more educated, safe or free to make their political choices, yet their majority usually chooses more hierarchy, domination, suffering and competition. Of course this is painted as heartfelt distress for the future of the welfare state.
It could be less depressing to live in a society governed by political violence. Then one could dream that the nightmare is created by some evil psychos.
I think you are misinterpreting Graeber. He had been very adamant that his intentions were never to define the nature of humanity or make moral assessments of what constitutes a good or bad society. In fact, he tried to dispel these myths and open up the conversation to the immense variety, flexibility and complexity he had seen in cultures all over the world.
His anthropological knowledge was the real draw for me, but I felt a strong demagogic undercurrent in these chapters as well (in Debt, at least). There's nothing bad about being optimistic or bringing power dynamics into light, and it's fun to see how someone interprets history so differently. Yet it somehow depresses me personally when someone sees less rapacious cultures or systems as missed opportunities or something that could come into existence in place of the present reality, which is rapidly turning into a Hobbesian tragedy.
I'm an anti-determinist materialist, but I fail to see how less aggressive cultures or modes of production could have spread their influence enough to make a dent in the human made climate catastrophe. It was nice to know though that there has been variability in political or social realities in the past, just as it was nice to be onboard of the social democratic project or at least it's aftermath.
I feel like we are all trapped in the smoke cloud now, with vastly different possibilities of adaptation of course. Even though this could be seen as a chance for a radical change, what I see around me is telling me it's not going to be change for less violence and greed.
I have heard it being called growthism more than once and I believe Jason Moore coined the term Capitalocene in reaction to the surge in popularity of the word Anthropocene.
It's just tough because we have the ability to articulate and predict exactly where this is going, yet still completely fail to stop it. The ability to imagine something better is unique to humans in the history of life on earth, and we're wasting it's potential.
SS: Dr. William Reese masterfully explains that every organism will grow exponentially once it’s negative feedback or removed or overcome. This suggests it was virtually inevitable for humans to greatly exceed our carrying capacity, leading to eventual ecological collapse.
I take solace in this message as it allows us to overcome our finger pointing for who’s to blame, but rather work with each other and our fellow earthlings compassionately on the way down.
I am not going to stop finger pointing at capitalists and their minions. We have agency to have prevented what's happened and we chose not to. I dislike arguments with the word "inevitable." It's disempowering to all but those who are reaping the benefits. They love it when we say "Ah gee, nothing we could have done."
The overshoot and collapse is not unique to our time, time of capitalism. I think literally hundreds of civilizations have grown, overshot, collapsed, and left behind ruins for us to ponder later. People have a saying: forests precede civilizations and deserts follow them. That is very much how it's like: a forest is felled, fertile land farmed and irrigated until it becomes so salty that nothing grows there, and what is left of many civilizations that once were on fertile soil are just ruins amid deserts where nothing grows to this day.
These civilizations weren't capitalistic, whatever it would mean in ancient times. They had money and did trade products and labor. Bought and sold. But, I don't think there was like a stock market or whole lot of financing going on, or whatever capitalism should mean in near prehistoric times. Rather, I think it is simply in the nature of civilizations to collapse. If there is room to expand into -- fertile land, game, fish, whatever -- then someone is going to expand there. Humanity as a group simply won't leave usable resources unused. Then, once situation changes -- land becomes salted, fish and game runs out, volcano erupts and cools the planet, the stage is set for a collapse because human demands tend to grow until they match the maximum that is possible at any given environment.
Even if our culture had a taboo that some piece of land is to not be used for anything, or some animal species is not to be eaten, a neighboring tribe might well not have such a taboo and happily exploits the resources we left on the table, and thus benefits from them to the degree they are beneficial according to laws that govern reality. Reality is amoral, and simply gives you the consequence that is dictated by the objective rules of our reality. I bet that many a peaceful, content and civilized societies have probably been destroyed by their more brutal and expansionist rivals over the years.
Every single species on planet has potential to grow its numbers because all that do not have this potential are already extinct. And living space, food, etc. is all it takes for growth to happen. Such growth is normally pushed back by nature: high birth are balanced by high death. The thing we did was remove high death by use of technology and energy. Yes, capitalism is probably involved in that as well, but it was the coal seams and iron ore at the surface of Great Britain that were combined with the invention of the steam engine, and that started production of steel, which then turned into modernity, and set the stage for ultimate destruction of the climate, the depletion of every industrially exploitable resource and the massive increase in population in a boom of science and technology.
Britain's population started to grow because Britain was able to purchase food from other countries by shipping them steel. So steel, a product of natural resource, was commodity, food turned into population growth, and this is how growth happened. I am going to say that no capitalist ordered population growth.
I would say that’s the case if we only view two possible futures: maintain our status quo indefinitely or face collapse.
I personally believe we should still do what we can to soften the blow, even though I’m convinced collapse is inevitable. This is why I won’t have kids, I’m vegan, I have solar panels and an electric vehicle, etc.
And why did humans make those choices? Perhaps because it's in our nature?
Willfull choice is an illusion for most humans. We act in certain ways and then wonder why we did what we did. If humans were actually in control of themselves, there wouldn't be addictions, procrastination, violence, etc.
Ever tried to change an engrained habit? Was it easy? Ever thoroughly dug into why your personality, mannerisms, or communication styles are how they are? Did you "choose" to be the way you are?
The more you dig into human behaviour, the more you learn that most people are just playing out the their combined upbringings, environments, and genetics.
How can you see the whole situation playing out exactly how it is and say "this isn't our nature?" Maybe it's not your nature, and that's great, but humanity is diverse.
Do you think Donald Trump and Elon Musk chose to be who they are? Look at both their parents...then go down their lineage as far back as you can and point out who the first "bad apple" was. Is that even possible? Did that first "bad apple" just choose to be bad.
I could go on and on. Humanity evolved from nature, and we will always be natural. The choices we have made as a society are natural, otherwise we would have made different choices.
There's plenty we all can do, but the things that are necessary at this point are very far away from the life of comfort we're living. Most people are not willing or able to live the life that's needed right now to turn this around.
We all have a hand in this. The is no capitalism without us, the masses. But we can't buy our way out of this one. It would need a radical change in lifestyle, probably back to tribal/village life. I don't see that happening for most of the population for various reasons. But blaming it all on capitalists is far short of the full picture.
I fully agree that what we can do is not going to be fun. It will be necessary at some point. I also fully agree that we all have a hand in this.
I think there will be chaos and a lot of death, then there will be much smaller social groups. Those who are left will regroup and they won't have the resources to lead the lives of luxury we are leading. I just don't know when it will happen.
I see the same future for us.
It's the main reason I'm already building up my homestead in a small community of homesteads. Trying to learn before it's a necessity while also helping reverse the damage done by modern farming methods.
It's a very hard life and I still have to revert to modern technology quite often. Just because I can't cut it yet.
It's "inevitable" because of the amount of carbon we've ALREADY pumped into the atmosphere. We maybe could have prevented collapse 50-100 years ago if all countries had cooperated together to stop industrialization (which would also stop global population growth, as we'd be limited by our food production). Obviously, there wasn't political will... because the average person would have revolted against these drastic measures.
World leaders are now attempting to implement some of these drastic measures (mostly covertly), and the public responds with temper tantrums. Economic austerity measures, reshoring local manufacturing, reducing government benefit programs... all target reducing the global carbon footprint. You can argue that this version of "degrowth" is wrong, but the utopian version espoused by Jason Hickel wasn't ever going to happen, because of the nature of power structures. Humans are dumb apes, not enlightened masters.
Come on. Read the original post. The "inevitable" argument was about species dynamics - something we don't have control over -- not about the fact that we willfully CHOSE to dump carbon.
What covert measures are being attempted? I am asking in good faith. Who is doing it? Economic austerity is not to solve the climate problem but for purely economic reasons, as far as I can tell. Who is reducing government benefits and how does that address climate, loss of biodiversity etc? Who is reshoring local manufacturing?
I agree Hickel is not taking account of power. Althougg the other apes don't behave like humans, but that's a story for another time.
I often try to take solace in reductivism these days, and I sincerely think the trajectory of our species could not have gone a lot better. Still I'm so disappointed and disgusted when scrolling the news. Humans have a 2500-year old written history of political thinking. Political answers needed to solve climate change have already been figured out. We also have all the technology we need, there isn't a need for a deus ex machina, and neither would that help if not under ecologically informed political control.
I can't help feeling that misplaced or overly emotional compassion is one of the most important reasons why there hasn't been an ecologically sound synthesis of politics and technology. The lack of a political world hegemony is the other. I think it was doable for the few years when there was just one nuclear power in the world. As I'm veering off to fantasy here, the system could have been democratic as well. Is there anything more natural and powerful human drive to exploit politically than keeping your offspring safe? I doubt the majority of people would enjoy burgers or cars if they came loaded with social shame and deep sincere guilt. It takes a lot of marketing to keep these feelings at bay even ATM.
I imagine it would be a violent, cruel, inhumane and assholist culture devoid of many of the niceties we can have while dodging the negative topics for as long as possible. Which was until now.
"We" don't have a collective interest, even though this is probably the first time in our history humanity could see one. There are limited collective interests, sure, like alliances during war times. Good bartering opportunities. People in the west have switched into an interesting discourse concerning the climate catastrophe: It's not us who will suffer, but the poor people in the south. Climate change is not generally treated as an even potentially existential problem, but strictly a moral one. It's easy to see how this type of talk satisfies needs in two important ways: "we" are safe, and I take great interest in morals.
I feel like it's not so much "we" as it is we've built a system, "capitalism" where if you can buy it you can have it and there is nothing "we" do about it.
He’s one of my heroes since tells the truth like it is without sugarcoating anything. He also has a lot of other presentations on YT that are similarly eye-opening.
This suggests it was virtually inevitable for humans to greatly exceed our carrying capacity, leading to eventual ecological collapse.
There's no way to know for sure, but I suspect we would not have gone into overshoot if women everywhere had access to an education and control over their own fertility.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/James_Fortis:
SS: Dr. William Reese masterfully explains that every organism will grow exponentially once its negative feedbacks are removed or overcome. This suggests it was virtually inevitable for humans to greatly exceed our carrying capacity, leading to eventual ecological collapse.
I take solace in this message as it allows us to overcome our finger-pointing for who’s to blame, and rather treat each other and our fellow earthlings compassionately on the way down.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1jmok7f/this_presentation_by_dr_william_reese_is_the_best/mkd8e1q/
philrandal@reddit
It is very disrespectful to misspell someone you're quoting's name. It is William Rees, not Reese.
The former is a wise man, the latter is the manufacturer of a vile peanut butter concoction.
Guilty_Glove_5758@reddit
I'm new to posting on Reddit. Is it typical to be downvoted for being funny here? Sad, sad internets.
Interestingllc@reddit
Just another sign of collapse, nothing seems humorous
Guilty_Glove_5758@reddit
Sickeningly true. Satire and irony used to give me some breathing space and a way of communicating intelligently. Both are dead and gone. Edgy comedy? Forget about it. Guess I'll just have to snicker at the reality then. Look at them little shits go at it!
Interestingllc@reddit
Reality is borderline unbelievable dark comedy, just take a look around... For gods sake did everybody forget that the president RAPED A CHILD? anything else he does is minor.
Guilty_Glove_5758@reddit
That's normal. Ted Heath was a serial child molester while PM of UK.
pumpkinspicecum@reddit
i'm sure it was a mistake. chill.
trihohair@reddit
I found two murderers named William Reese lmao
James_Fortis@reddit (OP)
My mistake! I can’t edit the title but have edited my SS.
isonfiy@reddit
Ah yes it’s our human nature.
Just ignore all the humans who naturally behave otherwise. Actually they’re hard to ignore so they’ve been eliminated. Oh no it turns out all humans behave in a wide range of ways. Can we engineer society so the only ways to behave line up with “our human nature”? Good.
Wait why is suicide, violent deviance, and all manner of mental and physical ill health out of control???
Go_Actual_Ducks@reddit
Regardless of how different people behave, the groups who are more aggressive and better at physical violence will come to dominate, every time. Most of us can only pretend otherwise because we happen to live in a state of relative peace (for now).
isonfiy@reddit
I see. From where does this culture of domination and violence originate if there’s so many different configurations of humans even within cultures of violence and domination?
Go_Actual_Ducks@reddit
That's a fascinating question. My ignorant notion is that this has been in us since we left Africa, if not earlier, and the current mass extinction began at that time. Some of the first extinctions were the Neanderthals and other human species.
isonfiy@reddit
Is there anything else that arose at this time that might confound your analysis?
Go_Actual_Ducks@reddit
I'm not sure what you're referring to - climatic changes that helped enable the expansion of Sapiens into new regions? Are you aware of the vast scale of extinctions that occurred as a result of that expansion? Do you think that was just some kind of incredible coincidence? I get that most people don't wanna acknowledge the implications, but I'd hope that in this subreddit of all places that people are willing to look reality in the face.
isonfiy@reddit
So first of all there have always been people in Africa since there were people anywhere. We didn’t “leave” there. Many of those societies practiced forms of subsistence that kept their metabolism in balance with nature. We have some of their innovations to this day. Things like raised beds, mulching, sustainable forms of irrigation, and so on, are all African innovations that suggest we are not naturally rapacious or doomed to overshoot.
I ask about other places because in, say, India, similar practices proliferated. Your perspective is only really applicable to North Africa and parts of the Levant. Those are places where hierarchical and centralized states emerged.
It’s ironic because based on the very thing you’re bringing up, prehistory, we should target the state and violent hierarchies rather than something like “human nature”.
Go_Actual_Ducks@reddit
Also, every animal population is "doomed to overshoot" - why would we be any different?
isonfiy@reddit
Because unlike other animal populations, humans can communicate and imagine and plan. Can you think of any other differences between humans and other animals that might produce different outcomes on long timescales?
You might as well say that other animal populations are doomed to remain on this planet so why not humans, and yet.
Go_Actual_Ducks@reddit
Seems like our special abilities have helped us to overshoot more dramatically than other animals.
isonfiy@reddit
And you think this is because that’s what’s natural for us?
Go_Actual_Ducks@reddit
So, as just one of myriad examples, you don't consider the Aztec empire to be a hierarchical and centralized state? It seems like you're engaged in motivated reasoning.
isonfiy@reddit
The Mexica and Inca and even less densely populated “New World” Indigenous nations like the Haida all had states or proto states. The Haudenosaunee even had a confederacy that helped inspire the US constitution. We have examples of that covered in ancient Egypt and to a degree Sumeria so they don’t exactly need to be brought up as evidence that people form such structures, do they?
The point is not that people do not form states naturally or unnaturally. It’s that there’s no determinism in our natures. We can live in states or as hermits or as huge networks of families subsisting off food forests that we cultivate for centuries. These are all in our nature. Human nature is therefore not the target.
hzpointon@reddit
I'm at the same conclusion. If you're not good at war, then you're removed for a group who is. The Cathars were a peaceful alternative take on Christianity that started to gain traction. Look where they are now.
Vipper_of_Vip99@reddit
I really enjoy his appearance on Nate Hagens’ podcast. Him and also his talk with Michael Dowd is great.
James_Fortis@reddit (OP)
Agreed! I’ve found this is basically a shorter version of the one he did with Nate Hagens.
NyriasNeo@reddit
Sums it up in one sentence .... it is always driven by our nature.
What he says is very much in line with my own view. All living things are evolved to be prosperous (i.e. multiply and dominate). Once, a species becomes successful and dominating, it will invariably change the environment. Because evolution works in much slower time scale of this change, the said species will doom themselves by changing the environment too much and go extinct. Wait enough time, new life will emerge and the cycle repeats.
It has already happened before. The early life on earth excreted oxygen and poisoned themselves but gave rise to us. We are just doing the same thing. It will happen again, again and again.
Arachno-Communism@reddit
We should not forget that the change of ontology from primarily animist to dualist domination narratives was a deliberate, violent development.
I'm not trying to sugarcoat subsistence economies/lifestyles or pretend that there weren't any problems between indigenous populations and their environments but humans had the capacity to approach a life of balance with their surroundings for the longest time. Even the peasant revolutions in medieval Europe caused a significant ecological improvement before they were crushed by the rise of capitalism.
This isn't primarily a human problem but first and foremost a problem of capitalism and the narrative of having the right or even duty to dominate and exploit nature.
Guilty_Glove_5758@reddit
Scandinavian social democracy here. I've read some Graeber for political escapism, but I just can't get into his view of the majority of people as these inherently well-meaning, social creatures forced into an violent system. People here don't have to worry about their safety for voting the least assholist candidates. Yet their majority votes the moderate right or the populists, time and time again, no matter how fucked the climate scene or the society is getting. Never in history have people been more educated, safe or free to make their political choices, yet their majority usually chooses more hierarchy, domination, suffering and competition. Of course this is painted as heartfelt distress for the future of the welfare state.
It could be less depressing to live in a society governed by political violence. Then one could dream that the nightmare is created by some evil psychos.
Arachno-Communism@reddit
I think you are misinterpreting Graeber. He had been very adamant that his intentions were never to define the nature of humanity or make moral assessments of what constitutes a good or bad society. In fact, he tried to dispel these myths and open up the conversation to the immense variety, flexibility and complexity he had seen in cultures all over the world.
Guilty_Glove_5758@reddit
His anthropological knowledge was the real draw for me, but I felt a strong demagogic undercurrent in these chapters as well (in Debt, at least). There's nothing bad about being optimistic or bringing power dynamics into light, and it's fun to see how someone interprets history so differently. Yet it somehow depresses me personally when someone sees less rapacious cultures or systems as missed opportunities or something that could come into existence in place of the present reality, which is rapidly turning into a Hobbesian tragedy.
I'm an anti-determinist materialist, but I fail to see how less aggressive cultures or modes of production could have spread their influence enough to make a dent in the human made climate catastrophe. It was nice to know though that there has been variability in political or social realities in the past, just as it was nice to be onboard of the social democratic project or at least it's aftermath.
I feel like we are all trapped in the smoke cloud now, with vastly different possibilities of adaptation of course. Even though this could be seen as a chance for a radical change, what I see around me is telling me it's not going to be change for less violence and greed.
Solitude_Intensifies@reddit
Should be referred to as cancerism.
Arachno-Communism@reddit
I have heard it being called growthism more than once and I believe Jason Moore coined the term Capitalocene in reaction to the surge in popularity of the word Anthropocene.
Alarming_Award5575@reddit
huh. because all future forms of life will be successful by following the same evolutionary logic?
likeupdogg@reddit
It's just tough because we have the ability to articulate and predict exactly where this is going, yet still completely fail to stop it. The ability to imagine something better is unique to humans in the history of life on earth, and we're wasting it's potential.
winston_obrien@reddit
“All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again” 🎶🎶All along the Watchtower…🎶🎶
James_Fortis@reddit (OP)
SS: Dr. William Reese masterfully explains that every organism will grow exponentially once it’s negative feedback or removed or overcome. This suggests it was virtually inevitable for humans to greatly exceed our carrying capacity, leading to eventual ecological collapse.
I take solace in this message as it allows us to overcome our finger pointing for who’s to blame, but rather work with each other and our fellow earthlings compassionately on the way down.
SweetAlyssumm@reddit
I am not going to stop finger pointing at capitalists and their minions. We have agency to have prevented what's happened and we chose not to. I dislike arguments with the word "inevitable." It's disempowering to all but those who are reaping the benefits. They love it when we say "Ah gee, nothing we could have done."
audioen@reddit
The overshoot and collapse is not unique to our time, time of capitalism. I think literally hundreds of civilizations have grown, overshot, collapsed, and left behind ruins for us to ponder later. People have a saying: forests precede civilizations and deserts follow them. That is very much how it's like: a forest is felled, fertile land farmed and irrigated until it becomes so salty that nothing grows there, and what is left of many civilizations that once were on fertile soil are just ruins amid deserts where nothing grows to this day.
These civilizations weren't capitalistic, whatever it would mean in ancient times. They had money and did trade products and labor. Bought and sold. But, I don't think there was like a stock market or whole lot of financing going on, or whatever capitalism should mean in near prehistoric times. Rather, I think it is simply in the nature of civilizations to collapse. If there is room to expand into -- fertile land, game, fish, whatever -- then someone is going to expand there. Humanity as a group simply won't leave usable resources unused. Then, once situation changes -- land becomes salted, fish and game runs out, volcano erupts and cools the planet, the stage is set for a collapse because human demands tend to grow until they match the maximum that is possible at any given environment.
Even if our culture had a taboo that some piece of land is to not be used for anything, or some animal species is not to be eaten, a neighboring tribe might well not have such a taboo and happily exploits the resources we left on the table, and thus benefits from them to the degree they are beneficial according to laws that govern reality. Reality is amoral, and simply gives you the consequence that is dictated by the objective rules of our reality. I bet that many a peaceful, content and civilized societies have probably been destroyed by their more brutal and expansionist rivals over the years.
Every single species on planet has potential to grow its numbers because all that do not have this potential are already extinct. And living space, food, etc. is all it takes for growth to happen. Such growth is normally pushed back by nature: high birth are balanced by high death. The thing we did was remove high death by use of technology and energy. Yes, capitalism is probably involved in that as well, but it was the coal seams and iron ore at the surface of Great Britain that were combined with the invention of the steam engine, and that started production of steel, which then turned into modernity, and set the stage for ultimate destruction of the climate, the depletion of every industrially exploitable resource and the massive increase in population in a boom of science and technology.
Britain's population started to grow because Britain was able to purchase food from other countries by shipping them steel. So steel, a product of natural resource, was commodity, food turned into population growth, and this is how growth happened. I am going to say that no capitalist ordered population growth.
James_Fortis@reddit (OP)
I would say that’s the case if we only view two possible futures: maintain our status quo indefinitely or face collapse.
I personally believe we should still do what we can to soften the blow, even though I’m convinced collapse is inevitable. This is why I won’t have kids, I’m vegan, I have solar panels and an electric vehicle, etc.
SweetAlyssumm@reddit
It's great what you are doing.
There will be a collapse. It's not because it's inevitable, it's because of the choices humanity has made.
threedeadypees@reddit
And why did humans make those choices? Perhaps because it's in our nature?
Willfull choice is an illusion for most humans. We act in certain ways and then wonder why we did what we did. If humans were actually in control of themselves, there wouldn't be addictions, procrastination, violence, etc.
Ever tried to change an engrained habit? Was it easy? Ever thoroughly dug into why your personality, mannerisms, or communication styles are how they are? Did you "choose" to be the way you are?
The more you dig into human behaviour, the more you learn that most people are just playing out the their combined upbringings, environments, and genetics.
How can you see the whole situation playing out exactly how it is and say "this isn't our nature?" Maybe it's not your nature, and that's great, but humanity is diverse.
Do you think Donald Trump and Elon Musk chose to be who they are? Look at both their parents...then go down their lineage as far back as you can and point out who the first "bad apple" was. Is that even possible? Did that first "bad apple" just choose to be bad.
I could go on and on. Humanity evolved from nature, and we will always be natural. The choices we have made as a society are natural, otherwise we would have made different choices.
Moochingaround@reddit
There's plenty we all can do, but the things that are necessary at this point are very far away from the life of comfort we're living. Most people are not willing or able to live the life that's needed right now to turn this around. We all have a hand in this. The is no capitalism without us, the masses. But we can't buy our way out of this one. It would need a radical change in lifestyle, probably back to tribal/village life. I don't see that happening for most of the population for various reasons. But blaming it all on capitalists is far short of the full picture.
SweetAlyssumm@reddit
I fully agree that what we can do is not going to be fun. It will be necessary at some point. I also fully agree that we all have a hand in this.
I think there will be chaos and a lot of death, then there will be much smaller social groups. Those who are left will regroup and they won't have the resources to lead the lives of luxury we are leading. I just don't know when it will happen.
Moochingaround@reddit
I see the same future for us. It's the main reason I'm already building up my homestead in a small community of homesteads. Trying to learn before it's a necessity while also helping reverse the damage done by modern farming methods.
It's a very hard life and I still have to revert to modern technology quite often. Just because I can't cut it yet.
Decent-Box-1859@reddit
It's "inevitable" because of the amount of carbon we've ALREADY pumped into the atmosphere. We maybe could have prevented collapse 50-100 years ago if all countries had cooperated together to stop industrialization (which would also stop global population growth, as we'd be limited by our food production). Obviously, there wasn't political will... because the average person would have revolted against these drastic measures.
World leaders are now attempting to implement some of these drastic measures (mostly covertly), and the public responds with temper tantrums. Economic austerity measures, reshoring local manufacturing, reducing government benefit programs... all target reducing the global carbon footprint. You can argue that this version of "degrowth" is wrong, but the utopian version espoused by Jason Hickel wasn't ever going to happen, because of the nature of power structures. Humans are dumb apes, not enlightened masters.
SweetAlyssumm@reddit
Come on. Read the original post. The "inevitable" argument was about species dynamics - something we don't have control over -- not about the fact that we willfully CHOSE to dump carbon.
What covert measures are being attempted? I am asking in good faith. Who is doing it? Economic austerity is not to solve the climate problem but for purely economic reasons, as far as I can tell. Who is reducing government benefits and how does that address climate, loss of biodiversity etc? Who is reshoring local manufacturing?
I agree Hickel is not taking account of power. Althougg the other apes don't behave like humans, but that's a story for another time.
Guilty_Glove_5758@reddit
I often try to take solace in reductivism these days, and I sincerely think the trajectory of our species could not have gone a lot better. Still I'm so disappointed and disgusted when scrolling the news. Humans have a 2500-year old written history of political thinking. Political answers needed to solve climate change have already been figured out. We also have all the technology we need, there isn't a need for a deus ex machina, and neither would that help if not under ecologically informed political control.
I can't help feeling that misplaced or overly emotional compassion is one of the most important reasons why there hasn't been an ecologically sound synthesis of politics and technology. The lack of a political world hegemony is the other. I think it was doable for the few years when there was just one nuclear power in the world. As I'm veering off to fantasy here, the system could have been democratic as well. Is there anything more natural and powerful human drive to exploit politically than keeping your offspring safe? I doubt the majority of people would enjoy burgers or cars if they came loaded with social shame and deep sincere guilt. It takes a lot of marketing to keep these feelings at bay even ATM.
I imagine it would be a violent, cruel, inhumane and assholist culture devoid of many of the niceties we can have while dodging the negative topics for as long as possible. Which was until now.
trailsman@reddit
Takeaway...we don't act in our collective interest despite mountains of better data & studies. Humans don't act rationally.
Currently on track for catostraphic climate change 3-4C
Guilty_Glove_5758@reddit
"We" don't have a collective interest, even though this is probably the first time in our history humanity could see one. There are limited collective interests, sure, like alliances during war times. Good bartering opportunities. People in the west have switched into an interesting discourse concerning the climate catastrophe: It's not us who will suffer, but the poor people in the south. Climate change is not generally treated as an even potentially existential problem, but strictly a moral one. It's easy to see how this type of talk satisfies needs in two important ways: "we" are safe, and I take great interest in morals.
md5md5md5@reddit
I feel like it's not so much "we" as it is we've built a system, "capitalism" where if you can buy it you can have it and there is nothing "we" do about it.
scionspecter28@reddit
He’s one of my heroes since tells the truth like it is without sugarcoating anything. He also has a lot of other presentations on YT that are similarly eye-opening.
TheOldPug@reddit
There's no way to know for sure, but I suspect we would not have gone into overshoot if women everywhere had access to an education and control over their own fertility.
Goldn_230@reddit
Sweet!
petered79@reddit
it will boom until it bust. spoiler alert: sooner than expected
StatementBot@reddit
The following submission statement was provided by /u/James_Fortis:
SS: Dr. William Reese masterfully explains that every organism will grow exponentially once its negative feedbacks are removed or overcome. This suggests it was virtually inevitable for humans to greatly exceed our carrying capacity, leading to eventual ecological collapse.
I take solace in this message as it allows us to overcome our finger-pointing for who’s to blame, and rather treat each other and our fellow earthlings compassionately on the way down.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1jmok7f/this_presentation_by_dr_william_reese_is_the_best/mkd8e1q/