Climate collapse is inevitable if we try to save capitalism too.

Posted by Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit | collapse | View on Reddit | 298 comments

Climate collapse is inevitable if we try to save capitalism too.

Reply to Post

Reply

298 Comments

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

SS. We can't save capitalism and the climate. Related to collapse because capital is mainly created by the destruction of the planet. Over extraction of resources in order to maximise profit got us into this mess and more extraction of resources can't get us out of it. Enjoy the time we have left friends.

Reply

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

I'm pretty sure that *any* system that will feed 8 billion people and give them a decent standard of living is not going to save the climate.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

I disagree. This is a drastic suggestion and I wouldnt recommend doing it. But eliminate the livestock industry. No giant cattle farms or chicken etc. Population becomes primarily vegetarian. All of the land that was used to grow livestock feed (most of the farmable land) should be the focus of a soil restoration program. We then use sustainable farming techniques like no till and permaculture and eliminate big AG. People move out of the cities and spread back out across the nation. %85 of people return to farming for their own food. No till and permaculture practices require less overall labor. There is enough farmable land for every american houshold to have at least 1 acre if we no longer use it to produce feed for 10s of billions of livestock. As people move out of cities, turn those old sky scrapers into giant vertical gardens and leave the remaining food production happen there. Over a couple generations as the soil heals and native plant life is restored, the ground will become much better at retaining water which should help with our demand. Not too mention you get a good amount of water intake eating fresh veg. I honestly think the planet could support more than 8 billion with the right lifestyle and planning. But yeah, we would have to give some things up lol

Reply

[-]

Xamzarqan@reddit

Wouldn't more than 8 billion living agrarian lifestyles still cause habitat losses and eventual mass extinction as result of competition for land from other creatures?

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

I dont think so, at least not as much as we already do. Im not talking everyone go back to 1905. We are much more knowledgable about less-invasive ag methods from simple no-till to full on eco-restorative farming. Using these techniques people can get more than enough for the family and community with less land than we think of traditionally. At this point, wildlife doesnt even get to compete. I'd argue having people more spread out, living in small and efficient resto-farming communities with their focus being on restoring the natural habitat would help wildlife if anything. People farming doesn't have to mean wildlife cannot be there. Unless it hogs lmao. I dont think it matters what type of farm you want to run, hogs will tear it up. I think our current methods which require billions of livestock in centralized locations does more harm than 75 million households with a handful of livestock. Not to mention the amount of waste involved in modern ag. The biggest problem with my suggestion is that it requires a majority of people willing to make the change and I dont see that happening. It would also require a land resistribution similar to how the US took land from the native populations to expand originally except this time the gov. would need to buy the land from these corporations which Im sure would be a sight to behold lol and finally, there would have to be some sort of education program to enable the transition. 100yrs ago most homes had some level of knowledge about farming/gardening. I imagine it is next to none in 2024. So yeah. It's really just a dream, not like anyone believes this would ever happen.

Reply

[-]

Xamzarqan@reddit

>I dont think so, at least not as much as we already do\*\*. Im not talking everyone go back to 1905.\*\* We are much more knowledgable about less-invasive ag methods from simple no-till to full on eco-restorative farming. Can you expound further on the part I bolded? Would this new techniques require any fossil fuels, electricity or just totally manual labor? >Using these techniques people can get more than enough for the family and community with less land than we think of traditionally. So this new farming techniques won't resemble those of the past centuries such as the 1500s, 1600s or 1700s, etc. then if I am grasping you correctly? >At this point, wildlife doesnt even get to compete. I'd argue having people more spread out, living in small and efficient resto-farming communities with their focus being on restoring the natural habitat would help wildlife if anything. Interesting. Would these hypothetical agrarian/subsistence socities of let's say 8 billion, have any modern amenities or would they be totally like the "old fashioned" pre-industrial peasant villages? >**Unless it hogs lmao. I dont think it matters what type of farm you want to run, hogs will tear it up**. I think our current methods which require billions of livestock in centralized locations does more harm than 75 million households with a handful of livestock. Not to mention the amount of waste involved in modern ag. Hmm are you sure its only hogs (i'm assuming you referring only to the USA in this case)? Won't deer and monkeys also do this? >The biggest problem with my suggestion is that it requires a majority of people willing to make the change and I dont see that happening. It would also require a land resistribution similar to how the US took land from the native populations to expand originally except this time the gov. would need to buy the land from these corporations which Im sure would be a sight to behold lol and finally, there would have to be some sort of education program to enable the transition. 100yrs ago most homes had some level of knowledge about farming/gardening. I imagine it is next to none in 2024. So yeah. It's really just a dream, not like anyone believes this would ever happen. I see. Very intriguing. Nice thoughts btw. I agreed this is unlikely to happen unless Mother Nature forced it on us. Modern day Westerners are very spoiled to first world comforts and luxuries to transition in my opinion. I feel those who live in the third world will have much easier time transitioning to this, imo.

Reply

[-]

LeopardFan9299@reddit

This is an extremely west centric viewpoint. I have worked with pastoral communities in the global south and the persistence of demand for meat, wool, leather etc is what keeps their livelihoods viable. Not to mention that mixed farming in many places outside of the west is crucial for income and nutritional security. But yes, large cattle ranches are awful. However, I dont think that we are short of food for 8 billion people. We would defo be short of it if everyone lived like the average american or canadian.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

I know bro, check out my comment history. I was arguing with some vegans about this exact thing. It is definitely a west centric viewpoint because it is a problem in the West. And some parts of south america.

Reply

[-]

Opalcloud13@reddit

X yrs from now: The climate is too effed to grow food items, except in a few choice places. No amount of killing cattle or cutting pollution can undo what was already done by generations prior, the icecaps all melted long ago and the ocean currents were irrevocably changed. Weather patterns are not predictable enough for crop growing seasons. People with good land will be the new wealthy class, people with bad land will die or turn to war against those with good land. The people who can grow food hoard it for their families and communities and do not share. What now?

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

If we are going with X years, then even the wealthiest wont have good enough land at some point. Things are going to get really hot lol. Let's say X is 80 yrs from now, that's about 2 generations that can grow up in a different culture. Yeah, the baked in damage will likely end our species at some X value of years, but honestly likely within 1000 save some magic solution. We baked in the warming and on track for beyond 4C I think. Anyway. Until whenever that time is, those generations can at least live knowing the focus of their culture was to do their best to restore what they could and make life as best as it could be rather than all slaving away for a select fews profit. If the assumption is we are all going to die anyway, then lets stop being wage slaves and enjoy building a better world until our last day. Then we can all perish together. Instead of bombing cities full of starving people. If its all over anyway, give it a good ending.

Reply

[-]

Opalcloud13@reddit

Would be nice, i like your pipe dream. Good luck convincing people they need to give up their phones, cars and ac though. People will actively choose a faster more firey death rather than give up next day Amazon delivery. I've become completely disillusioned with human nature. For every one person like you who wants a better future, there are 10 who demand a better present at the expense of that future.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Which is why if you want to read through some of my comments, my goal is to immediately address the present to spend the next 2 decades changing the culture. People demand a better present because it has been wrecked for them. Had the trillions of dollars hoarded by private interests over the last 50 years and gone back into the public, people today could afford to think about the future. We have been trapped in an economic situation that puts the average person under greater threat of death in the next 5 years if they do not participate in said system than the threat of death from climate which likely still some generations off. Its not that people do not want a better future. It's that there are larger threats to their wellbeing on a much sooner timescale due to controlled poverty. If we start taking back this stolen wealth from the small group of humanity that are incredibly and are actually outliers in regards to human nature. Its just that this group wields so much power in shaping the world that within the system of greed the average person appears to be short-centered and selfish, but in reality they are operating within short-term survival conditions as they have evolved to do which has led to an incredibly divisive and competitive culture. If the average person was guaranteed health, home, food, and knowledge then they could be equipped to express the better qualities of their humanity. Human nature is much more altruistic and cooperative that cuthroat and exploitative *IF* certain basic conditions are met. And even if they are met, if people are at risk at losing them again in the short-term then they will still operate in survival mode. We need to make much more durable tech; phones that can last 15 years instead of 4 or 5. And stop producing on the level we do. We need to do this with basically everything we create. I think with serious research into energy storage, clean energy at the home level will be feasible and people should be able to run their phones. Homes can be built using natural earth techniques thay eliminate much need for AC in many places just run a fan. If we get really lucky and can create room temp superconductors or even better small scale nuclear reactors we could possibly keep our AC and things.

Reply

[-]

Opalcloud13@reddit

Again, lovely pipe dream. The only way to achieve this is with a bloody revolution. The ruling class won't relinquish wealth, power and capitalism without a big fight. Yes everyone right now is too poor to strive for a better future, bc the ruling class keeps it that way. With the internet it's now easier than ever for the ruling class to divide and conquer. If people are more concerned about bathrooms than about climate change, then they won't guillotine the rich. I'm completely pessimistic, and tbh optimism like yours is frankly insulting when faced with actual observable reality. You can say "we need to do x, we need to do y, we need to build homes different, make phones that last a decade, we need to stop producing." Yeah duh. But will we? No.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Im operaring according to my biology friend. I apologize if it offends. Some of us need to be more optimisitc. With the internet it is also easier than ever to work collectively. I understand your pessimism and while it is grounded in observable reality it is still an ideology to offer some comfort because your idea of reality reflects reality and lacks dissonance. I get it. There is an anxiety that comes with still trying to hope that is nearly unbearable. Seriously, i think it leads some folk to suicide. This is the downside to optimism. And yes, at some point a revolution will likely occur and afterwards there will likely be some time left. I desire for what comes after that to be better so that people then can have a just society for whatever time is left for the species. And part of that work is having this conversation in the decades prior because the sooner the said revolution occurs the better. I honestly think it will be bloodier than previous ones unless the capitalist class really decides to expend a lot of resources. I really dont thing MAGA people will be defending the capitalists at this point, I know actual leftists would likely work with whoever if it meant a united class of labor. I think solidarity is possible. If you look at people that survived death cults or left right before its like they have woken up out of some dream. I think this will take place with people in the lower class. People will see the opportunity to work together to actually throw off oppression and set aside differences. And what follows after may be a total shit show but oh well.

Reply

[-]

Opalcloud13@reddit

It's going to get wild, and I'm not looking forward to it one bit. I do agree with you that we need to have conversations now about how we want our rebuilt world to look, hopefully there is still enough livable earth left to sustain a seed of a star trek future. I don't expect to last to see it.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

I dont either man. But thanks for chatting about it🍻

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> As people move out of cities, turn those old sky scrapers into giant vertical gardens and leave the remaining food production happen there. This one was not thought through; vertical gardening has already been dismissed as an option for population centers due to its very high energy costs. In an energy-poor future, any vertical farming will only be available to the very wealthy.

Reply

[-]

Midithir@reddit

In Horticulture college we called this one 'Rabbit food for rich people.'

Reply

[-]

sirkatoris@reddit

Imagine bringing the soil in (from where? How?)

Reply

[-]

NoCSForYou@reddit

Vertical gardens are soilless. They grow in water. They consume a lot of water, and a lot of power, but don't need soil and can be done indoors.

Reply

[-]

Cereal_Ki11er@reddit

With energy consumption being one of the major drivers of climate collapse, and direct environmental destruction being another, it seems reasonable to work towards a future with a lower human population that practices old school agriculture.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> that practices old school agriculture. Most sensible comment of the day; but even here many will ignore it. People are truly addicted to modern high-consumption civilization.

Reply

[-]

Cereal_Ki11er@reddit

Yep. People genuinely think “we can’t abandon our progress” despite it leading to annihilation. Some progress. Some things are worth keeping, but won’t kill us. Keep those. The self destructive features of our civ need to be abandoned.

Reply

[-]

baconraygun@reddit

I think about that a lot when I see how much pavement is everywhere and how many people view pavement as "progress".

Reply

[-]

MuelDaddyLongLegs@reddit

I’d turn the sky scrapers into gravity batteries and housing. Nobody needs more shitty bank/tech offices with useless drone tasks

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Yeah it was really just tacked on at the end because theres always some futurist dude who thinks it would work. I would just tear them all down and turn them into parks and community gardens. Convert them to a more europeans style city. Although, i think we will solve the energy problem. I think we already have. We just don't act on our knowledge and continue burning fuels. The biggest concern would be the water imo. But you are correct. I gave it no more than 5 seconds of thought. I was serious about soil restoration and no till farming though. And vertical farming could be feasible in 50 years. What I suggested would take a couple of generations. I canr just force people out. It starts with childhood education and educating them from k-12 in ecosytem science and soil restoration. Basically spend the next 20 years creating a group of people who will graduate highschool with expert knowledge in these subjects especially in the local areas in which the school operates. Because then you have a group of people capable of relocating and starting sustainable farms. Thats the biggest barrier. Where do the knowledgable peope come from? We have to make them. If I couldnt make college free, I would immediately subisidize all programs related to any environmental science and focus every program on restoration. I would subsidize the salaries of the nations current experts and college grads to go out and help establish the new public school program. We need a Civil Corps level program to address our crisis.

Reply

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

I think you will run into a *mild* bit of resistance with the "forcibly compel 85% of the population to become farmers" step. But, I imagine it would not be too much of a problem since by then you already have the global authoritarian government needed to "eliminate the livestock industry".

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Right. You said *any* system. Which would include theoretical ones. That's why I prefaced with I wouldnt recommend doing this lol. I just wanted to illustrate that a system could exist. If I was going to seriously implement a system, go read my other comments. It would not be compelled. It would be heavily, heavily incentivized. It would take a couple generations of education and pouring money into children. But I think such a transition could be possible without force of any means.

Reply

[-]

lukasz5675@reddit

One could argue we are being forced now, with the pricing system. Meat is cheaper than most vegetables where I live, it's crazy.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Mhmm. This is why we need local food networks (not the tv show lol) some people live in places that produce tons of veg and no meat prices are high and some people live in the opposite situation. This was not the case as often when most of a communities food was grown and culled within 25 miles of town. Now we ship food thousands of miles and people live in places where you cant grow crops or raise stock🤣 we need to be smarter than this

Reply

[-]

Yongaia@reddit

I don't care what would happen if it was attempted to be done. The point is that it's possible. In other words, the planet definitely could support 8 billion people. But because of (westerns) peoples greed it won't. So stop saying that it can't on principle because it's simply not true.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Exactly its just math. What is the caloric budget of the biomass within the livestock industry and what is the caloric budget of 8 billion humans. Run the math. Humans = 14.4 trillion calories per day Cows= 18.5 trillion Chicken= 7.5 trillion Goat= 1.44 trillion Sheep= 2.4 trillion Pig= 2.2344 trillion Livestock= 32.0744 trillion calories per day. I think there is room in the budget to eat fewer animals. If we can produce 32 trillion calories of plant food per day to feed livestock, I feel as though we could produce 14.4 trillion calories for people. Cut out %80 of livestock and you get away with a calorie budget for humans and livestock that hangs around 20-21trillion calories. Yeah. We can support 8 billion and still have some meat in our diet even with our industrialised food systems🤣🤣 (Please note that I took the average caloric usage since most of the species have a range depending on their sex and whether they are pregnant.)

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> the planet definitely could support 8 billion people. But because of (westerns) peoples greed it won't. Source?

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> I think you will run into a mild bit of resistance with the "forcibly compel 85% of the population to become farmers" step. The Khmer Rouge tried it in 1975; didn't work out so well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

Reply

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

Didn't stop them from trying because their ideology said it was a good idea... :(

Reply

[-]

KingDiscombobulated4@reddit

Humans are not adapted to eat only plant food

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Agreed. Which is why most nearly all quality sustainable farming practices reccomend things like chickens and ducks for pests, and goats help trim around trees. Would have no problem with people still locally farming sheep. If people still want the big game then learn how to hunt. I grew up hunting many a season. Duck, dove, deer, hog. Everywhere has a different selection but if you need more meat than what you could farm on a small property 🤷‍♂️ that would be part of the lifestyle adjustment. I honestly would reccomend enjoying chicken. I grew uo eatinf squirrel too and its pretty good. There are plenty of options. Every other predator that is a true carnivore is eating much smaller game everyday. We do not need a billion cows and 20 billions chickens being farmed for us to get the meat we need. Although I feel like there are cultures who exist on plant food and non-meat animal products alone and have done so for thousands of years. So yes we need more than jist plants. But maybe we just need to cook with goats milk and eat some cheese. Not prop up a billion dollar industry that destroys natural habitats.

Reply

[-]

baconraygun@reddit

I've eaten pigeon/dove and it's mighty fine eatin'. Honestly, I prefer it over chicken.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Sameeeee. And duck is great too. Honestly poultry should is great. They are easy to raise on a small property with a fantastic reproduction cycle and can still provide sources of protein without killing them. Raising pigeons and ducks is killer🤣👍🏼

Reply

[-]

Catatonic27@reddit

This is such a good response

Reply

[-]

KingDiscombobulated4@reddit

We only need about 300 grams of meat a day. Growing plants in agriculture is also very damaging to the soil, and humans have evolved to be omnivores. I believe that the problem with food habits in the modern world is over-consumption and disrespect for food.

Reply

[-]

elmo298@reddit

appropriate username

Reply

[-]

PandaBoyWonder@reddit

> We then use sustainable farming techniques like no till and permaculture and eliminate big AG I think this alone would be enough to greatly reduce this problem. It seems so inefficient to grow edible food, just to give it to cows so they grow faster. To me it makes more sense to utilize open fields that they can graze in, instead of a small mud pit with big feed troughs.

Reply

[-]

baconraygun@reddit

Especially when substandard land for growing grain or veg is better utilized as forage for animals, and having them forage there can turn it into better quality soil too.

Reply

[-]

lukasz5675@reddit

But what about the shareholders?

Reply

[-]

mollyforever@reddit

> People move out of the cities and spread back out across the nation. %85 of people return to farming for their own food. But why? It's more efficient to move everyone into cities.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Because all the restoration that needs to be done is out in places that arent cities. All the land used for cattle and monocropping. I would spend the first couple decades building an electric high speed rail throughout the country so that people could still access areas in a reasonable time span. I would really try to set up somethinf like the civil corps program. I want to educate and employ millions and millions of people on the projects in the short term of the next 20 years. By then an entire generation of highschool graduates educated in environmental resotoration would be ready to choose what region of the place they would like to relocate and begin specializing in resotration in that are in a university level program alongside another preferred study if they desire. But it would be everyone k-12 whether you want to be a doctor, author, engineer, musician, carpenter, etc. Whatever you want to be, you will know how to regeneratively farm and restore native habitats. I would invest trillions into this over the next couple decades. If the money prineter can *brrrrrr* for inauditble military funding, then it can damn sure *brrrrr* for this. Along with the highest taxes for the wealthiest again. Like things were back in early-mid 20th century. I would also target native american communities. They should lead the way on this. They tended this continent for thousands of year and if we arent going to return their lands then at the very least they should be leading the process. I would focus funding to their communities and assure them the best education. And Efficient for what specifically?

Reply

[-]

mollyforever@reddit

> And Efficient for what specifically? Land use! I like your ideas though, I'll vote you for president.

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

🤣🤣 fair enough and thanks

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

Besides the competition, authoritarianism, social hierarchies, crime and mental illness caused by forcing agrarian, tribal hominids into densely packed urban environments, they are massive sources of heat and pollution, require enormous expenditures of energy to maintain, and by nature have a colonialist relationship with the surrounding countryside to feed its inhabitants.

Reply

[-]

NoCSForYou@reddit

China the country that can basically force you force you to do whatever they want can't stop people from eating live/wet meat. how do you expect the rest of the world which doesnt have the ability to be so strict or harsh to enforce such rules. Also I do grow my own food when I can. You can't just harvest food whenever you want. If grown outside of central/south America and South Africa they grow in seasons. You harvest them in bulk once in 1-2 years. Some plants you can harvest once a month or every few weeks, but they are flavorfull not filling. Livestock is needed. It gives you a year round food source. Unless you live in Vietnam, India, southern China, south America, Etc. The food can't be harvested year round. The weather is hard on humans and good for plants or easy on humans and bad for plants

Reply

[-]

TryptaMagiciaN@reddit

Which is why I wouldnt reccomend it. Please keep going down and read the comments. Im not against livestock or eating meat. Im against industrialised production for the future of our species. We need to use what we aleady have to transition to something new. The person i replied to said *any* system. There are people with year round green houses in the rocky mountains. We have tech that can enable us to grow foodnin harsh consitions on the scale of individual households. Again, I think water is the bigger concern here, but then again all those billioms of animals also require water and Im certainly not doing that math.

Reply

[-]

ILikeCodecaine@reddit

What does SS mean?

Reply

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

Submission statement. They are required on every post. You have to put SS or Submission statement so the bot doesn't automatically take down your post

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

Agree but the underlying issue is that the multiple causes of collapse stem from modern industrial society, and humanity in overshoot of planetary carrying capacity. TLDR: We cannot save modern industrial civilization without destroying the biosphere.

Reply

[-]

DaanGFX@reddit

This ecofascist overpopulation myth bullshit needs to stop. We are not overpopulated. We are disproportionately using and distributing resources.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

Funny, but the truth is the only way to reduce fossil fuels (or the products made from/with them, including food) is to reduce demand. If people in both developed and the rapidly-developing nations cannot accept a lower SOL, climate collapse is inevitable. Unless too many tipping points have already been crossed, which is very possible. The well-known time lag of 10-20 years in the impact of emissions on oceans and atmosphere is an enormous concern. Right now we're only dealing with the effect of the emissions from the 2000s.

Reply

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

>If people in both developed and the rapidly-developing nations cannot accept a lower SOL And that's a) not going to happen voluntarily, and b) not going to happen by any government imposing it on their own people, and c) no government is likely to give up sovereignty to let someone else impose it. Meaning d) it ain't gonna happen (until things fall apart and choice is removed from the equation)

Reply

[-]

Wave_of_Anal_Fury@reddit

And people hate to hear that, which is why I've been downvoted so many times for saying it (depending on Reddit's mood of the day). The only thing I would add is d) companies will never stop selling a product unless it's criminalized. Sellers sell. Buyers buy. That's the nature of capitalism. Attacking the first part of that simple relationship while claiming the second part is a victim of the first is why collapse is happening.

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

Sellers use advertising to literally brainwash people to buy more. CONSUME. OBEY. MARRY AND REPRODUCE.

Reply

[-]

JSchuler99@reddit

It's not the sellers, but the inflationary money, which is designed to increase consumption. The products and advertisements are a result of this, not the cause.

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

Sellers would advertise without inflationary money

Reply

[-]

JSchuler99@reddit

Of course they would, but the incentive to consume is the purpose of inflationary money. All of the economic incentives currently in place are to consume more than we produce which obviously is going to have hugely negative long-term ramifications on the planet.

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

The purpose of inflationary money is to prevent hoarding money, which causes deflation.

Reply

[-]

JSchuler99@reddit

Well it is working great because instead people hoard hard assets like homes, inflating the value and cost of living. Natural price deflation is not a bad thing, this is the lie that you are told.

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

If the money supply goes down, do prices go up or down?

Reply

[-]

JSchuler99@reddit

Prices will go down. But the money supply does not need to go down. Even with a static money supply prices will decrease as the efficiency of the market increases. Look at the technology sector, TVs especially have decreased in price because improvements in the manufacturing process have been able to outpace monetary inflation. None of the "deflationary periods" in recent history have been price deflation. They have all been credit deflation, which is terrible for the economy, but these two things should not be confused due to a surface similarity.

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

If I'm a smart investor in a non-inflationary currency, I'm taking as much money out of the supply as I can - decreasing the money supply. It happened with Bitcoin.

Reply

[-]

JSchuler99@reddit

Yes, Bitcoin’s deflationary nature encourages people to save money, which essentially means they are contributing goods or services without immediately consuming in return. Despite hoarding tendencies, Bitcoin remains a usable currency. The deflationary aspect nudges individuals towards saving, which can be seen as a positive, especially in a consumption-driven economy that has detrimental effects on the environment. This act of saving reflects a sustainable approach, contrasting the over-consumption that often leads to environmental degradation. It's baffling why this form of saving is perceived negatively when it actually promotes a break from relentless consumption.

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

And then in the future I get to immediately consume more than I ever contributed.

Reply

[-]

JSchuler99@reddit

Your worry about consuming more in the future due to saving today overlooks the factor of increased efficiency and productivity in the economy over time. As the economy evolves, technological advancements and improved processes often lead to lower costs and higher productivity, enabling the same amount of money to purchase more goods or services in the future. This isn’t about shifting the burden to the future; it's a reflection of the economy's natural progression towards enhanced efficiency. In a deflationary scenario like Bitcoin's, saving money could align with these economic advancements, promoting a more rational and potentially less wasteful approach to consumption. The act of saving today doesn’t necessarily lead to over-consumption tomorrow; instead, it can represent a more balanced and mindful approach to spending, in sync with the evolving economic landscape. You initially argue that people won't spend enough money, and then shift to a concern that they'll spend too much in the future. This overlooks the reality that collectively, different people will be in different stages of this cycle at different times, contributing to a balanced economic flow. So, which wins out overall?

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

The future increase in consumption is relative to labour. If automation doubles productivity, I'll get to consume three times what I produced.

Reply

[-]

JSchuler99@reddit

Exactly, the increased productivity through automation or other advancements allows for greater consumption without a proportional increase in individual labor. This showcases the evolving nature of the economy and how individual saving today doesn't necessarily equate to an unfair burden in the future. It’s a reflection of economic growth and efficiency advancements, which can enable a more balanced approach to consumption and saving, each complementing the other in different phases of economic cycles.

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

You didn't read my comment.

Reply

[-]

JSchuler99@reddit

I certainly did. Did you?

Reply

[-]

reercalium2@reddit

🤡

Reply

[-]

Wave_of_Anal_Fury@reddit

Except the science (you know, the same kind of science that says climate change and environmental degradation are happening) says that brainwashing is a myth. [https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/probing-question-does-brainwashing-exist/](https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/probing-question-does-brainwashing-exist/) Advertising works because it tells people what they want to hear. "Enjoy yourself. Have fun. You deserve to have a good life." That's confirmation bias, which actually is a real psychological phenomenon. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias)

Reply

[-]

BitchfulThinking@reddit

It also works by convincing people that they're inadequate in some way to get them to buy things. Shame and fear of rejection or being ostracized is a hell of a motivator and a large portion of what got us all into this mess. Keeping up with the Joneses and all that.

Reply

[-]

Persun_McPersonson@reddit

Isn't the term "brainwashing" nowadays sometimes just a colloquial shorthand for psychological and/or emotional manipulation, which is another big part of what makes advertising work (though I guess taking advantage of confirmation bias is just a specific kind of manipulation and so falls under that umbrella)? So the word can still be appropriate if interpreted this way—though I do see why it's necessary to dispel misconceptions like the more classic idea of brainwashing.

Reply

[-]

willisjs@reddit

One sociology and religious studies professor's opinion represents all of the science on brainwashing? Human beings are socialized and bombarded with advertising and propaganda from the time they attain consciousness. I tend to think that has an outsized impact on their attitudes, beliefs and values.

Reply

[-]

Cispania@reddit

Sociology and psychology research are much less well understood than climate science, so I think it's reductive to say they are equivalent. There's also the issue of most psychology experiments having irreproducable results.

Reply

[-]

RoughHornet587@reddit

I see this come up almost daily here. What's the answer?. Ecoauthoritarianism ?

Reply

[-]

RoughHornet587@reddit

Most here , have the intelligence to realise that technology isn't going to save us. Tech hopium is correctly seen as hollow. Yet every day here it's "end capitalism ". With what?. Marx hopium or Eco Authoritarianism or eco fascism is equally as stupid. "Let's wave a magic wand and force people to do what is needed by a group of unaccountable elites!" What could possibly go wrong?! Then you get downvoted by the idiots with no articulate answer to give.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

What do you mean? The Pigs will be just as equal as you, only more so.

Reply

[-]

Less-Country-2767@reddit

There isn't an answer because climate change isn't a problem, it's a predicament. Problems have solutions, predicaments only have outcomes.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

>I see this come up almost daily here. What's the answer?. Many of us believe that based on the technical and political challenges, *there is no satisfactory answer* that will prevent the collapse of the biosphere due to climate change, especially within the 10 or so years that many climate scientists warn is the remaining window of time.

Reply

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

Cynically, I would say the answer is "planning for collapse", which is an open-ended statement with the implication of "whatever floats your boat in that regard".

Reply

[-]

zeplin455@reddit

The good old "physics says no".

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

>Meaning d) it ain't gonna happen (until things fall apart and choice is removed from the equation) I also choose Door #D. But that doesn't make it less true.

Reply

[-]

jprefect@reddit

Capitalism creates it's own demand. It must be destroyed completely.

Reply

[-]

RoughHornet587@reddit

And replace it with what?

Reply

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

Being alive and needing food, water, clothing and shelter creates its own demand. It does not matter what political or social or economic system is used to meet that demand, the demand is what requires the resources. The only difference between systems is *how* the resources are distributed.

Reply

[-]

Rudybus@reddit

And that is a huge difference. There is an absolutely incredible amount of wasted energy and resources in capitalism. Literal billions of people forced to spend energy commuting, producing and consuming (through planned obsolescence) unnecessary things in order to keep the machine going - where everybody involved would be better off if they didn't.

Reply

[-]

jprefect@reddit

I do mean that Capitalism induces additional demand that isn't just for the enjoyment and sustainment of life. It does this through advertising, imperialism, and public policy. Capitalism is interested in getting people to consume as much as possible, and this is called "opening new markets".

Reply

[-]

echoGroot@reddit

What do you mean we’re only dealing with emissions from the 2000s? Is there really that much lag time? What is buffering the temperature?

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

>What do you mean we’re only dealing with emissions from the 2000s? Here's some sources: *Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.* https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001#:~:text=Our%20results%20suggest%20that%20as,several%20decades%2C%20if%20not%20centuries. *The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission* https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/031001 *the ocean absorbs much of the emissions that enter the atmosphere, holding onto them for decades before releasing them slowly back into the atmosphere.* https://info.ecogardens.com/blog/what-is-climate-change-lag-and-why-do-we-care *we will experience the full effect of today's emissions in 10 to 20 years time* https://earth.org/data_visualization/the-time-lag-of-climate-change/#:~:text=Studies%20have%20shown%20that%20the,avoid%20the%20worst%20of%20it.&text=What%20if%20emissions%20stopped%20today%3F

Reply

[-]

Beneficial-Fix-1995@reddit

100% agree with you. The only way out is reduction of population. War, hunger or pandemy?

Reply

[-]

06210311200805012006@reddit

Why choose? We're going to get all three.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

>The only way out is reduction of population. War, hunger or pandemy? From the POV of all other complex life on this planet, this is truth. None of the "choices" are remotely palatable of course. My own preference would have been a wiser society choosing global family planning 40 or 50 years ago. The Boomers has all the information needed then when *The Limits to Growth* were published, but they chose instead to disregard the future and devote their society to achieving high consumption wealth, a dream that to this day infects every nation on Earth.

Reply

[-]

Beneficial-Fix-1995@reddit

We had an opportunity when Soviet Union collapsed. Instead we got deregulation.

Reply

[-]

redpillsrule@reddit

But humans are naturally greedy is the main argument to keep things going the way they are.

Reply

[-]

voluptuous_component@reddit

Who's making that argument? Who is served by making that argument?

Reply

[-]

redpillsrule@reddit

You can't guess the greedy one's that own everything thought it was obvious.

Reply

[-]

VanceKelley@reddit

Capitalism is an economic system based on the innate selfishness that is part of the human genome. If we can excise selfishness from humanity then capitalism will quickly fade away.

Reply

[-]

voluptuous_component@reddit

Gee, it couldn't be that you say that because capitalism incentivizes greed, could it?

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

>If we can excise selfishness from humanity Welcome to the Spanish Inquisition. https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada

Reply

[-]

Coffee_Break_Hero@reddit

Honestly I could solve all the problems it's not that hard

Reply

[-]

flaming_pope@reddit

Gold maybe prized on earth, but the rarest thing in the universe are trees.

Reply

[-]

Ok-King6980@reddit

I’m gonna go with some species that only has like 100 remaining is a bit more rare than trees.

Reply

[-]

BitchfulThinking@reddit

[Encephalartos woodii](https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2011/05/10/136029423/the-loneliest-plant-in-the-world) is both a tree, extinct in the wild, *and* there's only one left (or clones of it, but it's dioecious) so it can't even reproduce :(

Reply

[-]

Ok-King6980@reddit

Ah dang. There we go then.

Reply

[-]

BitchfulThinking@reddit

It's awful. I'm already having a hard enough time with all the animals facing extinction, but the loss of flora hits even harder because of how so few people even notice plants.

Reply

[-]

Ok-King6980@reddit

People probably just assume plants will still be here after us… but there’s a possibility they go extinct when photosynthesis stops working at high temps.

Reply

[-]

BitchfulThinking@reddit

I have hope for... maybe ferns, ivy, and kudzu, but it's true. The hardiness zones are changing, so people who have been gardening for decades are suddenly having problems with their tried and true approaches and have to figure out new ways to care for their plants, but even trees in the forests are dealing with new diseases now.

Reply

[-]

flaming_pope@reddit

“Trees are not a monophyletic taxonomic group.” - Wikipedia Find something a bit more comparable at the same taxonomy level as trees, but rarer.

Reply

[-]

Krampusz420@reddit

actually it's chocolate

Reply

[-]

Oak_Woman@reddit

Comes from trees, too.

Reply

[-]

Jorlaxx@reddit

Very thought provoking. Cheers!

Reply

[-]

Numerous_Share7920@reddit

There’s not enough sand to build new roads, bridges, or foundations either.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

It sounds silly but completely true. Though we would only need more roads and bridges to accommodate raising the standards of living for even more people, which is insane. The current high consumption wealth of developed nations was never sustainable; it doesn't get better by increasing the number of people driving in cars.

Reply

[-]

salikabbasi@reddit

Yo are you telling me my bike is useless too in the long run because we can't even make road repairs?

Reply

[-]

Darkdangler96nasty@reddit

Mountain bikes don’t require pavement.

Reply

[-]

doomtherich@reddit

Also airless tires for bikes are available now, but have some caveats. Future development will probably make it more convenient and viable.

Reply

[-]

bullshaerk@reddit

W mountain bikes

Reply

[-]

salikabbasi@reddit

i didn't want to have to get two

Reply

[-]

breaducate@reddit

In away the sand shortage is my favourite harbinger of collapse. I know not all sand is suitable and all that, but it sounds ludicrous on the face of it. And yeah, the reality is ludicrous. To think that we could exhaust something so abundant, so taken for granted because we never stop, look around, and say hang on a sec, we can't keep doing this.

Reply

[-]

Grindelbart@reddit

Well, some people don't like sand. It's coarse, and rough, and irritating and it gets everywhere

Reply

[-]

gentian_red@reddit

We literally have driven species to extinction because we gobbled them all up leaving none left to reproduce... humans delude themselves that they have any more foresight than any other predator.

Reply

[-]

baconraygun@reddit

This guy passenger pigeons.

Reply

[-]

Numerous_Share7920@reddit

Messages Via Carrier Pigeon

Reply

[-]

sfhitz@reddit

Roads are also mostly made out of bitumen, a byproduct of gasoline and diesel refinement. I find it hard to believe we are going to refine oil for the asphalt and throw the fuel away.

Reply

[-]

Mr_Basketcase@reddit

Source?

Reply

[-]

Diaza_Kinutz@reddit

I mean I was just at the beach a couple of weeks ago...plenty of sand.

Reply

[-]

Cel_Drow@reddit

Desert sand doesn’t work for construction (eroded by wind not water) and more area than the size of the UK is harvested annually in river and beach sand annually. It’s not sustainable and there is a shortage of

Reply

[-]

Diaza_Kinutz@reddit

Oof

Reply

[-]

SixGunZen@reddit

>Climate collapse is inevitable ~~if we try to save capitalism too~~ FTFY

Reply

[-]

fufu3232@reddit

I love how the far left is not so subtly trying to take over this sub lol. We already had to get rid of the goose steppers, now this. Climate collapse is inevitable unless someone makes a Time Machine.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> I love how the far left is not so subtly trying to take over this sub lol. We already had to get rid of the goose steppers, now this. It's been rather obvious lately; lots of new posters that seem unaware of the basic science warning of collapse on multiple fronts, and who apparently believe that it is only an unpleasant aspect of capitalism. Any mention of overshoot or planetary carrying capacity is genocidal ecofascism somehow.

Reply

[-]

Ok-King6980@reddit

We can’t get rid of capitalism now, its done all the work to get us here.

Reply

[-]

crankycrassus@reddit

Yup! The only way we combat climate change is to do something nobody is ready to do. The fact is we can't drive, fly, and eat meat even remotely close to the amount we currently do. People in developed countries have gotten too used to the idea that they can drive anywhere and fly anywhere with the only limiting factor being the price. The world wasn't built to sustain that. The world wasn't built to take people from California to Italy every day. We are going to have to accept that our worlds should be smaller and more localized, and travel should be take through public transit like trains. People will have to learn that flight is a once every 4 or 5 years thing. There is no universe were we stop climate change while we are all still practicing these travel habits. And then meat is just about loss of jungle and forest areas and the impact that has on the climate. I'm assuming most of you on this sub know that meat is a huge cause of greenhouse gases and deforestation all over the world. I don't see humans changing these habits. We are addicts to travel and meat.

Reply

[-]

icredsox@reddit

I’ve been saying for the last 5 years, that humanity is a virus to the planet. We don’t do anything but consume and destroy. There is no hope. The World needs society to collapse and kill off 3/4 of the population. Then it will start to fix itself. It’s up to those who are left to choose if we make the same mistake or learn from our mistakes

Reply

[-]

SidKafizz@reddit

More like 7/8 in my opinion, but "killing off" the required number will cause its own problems. We needed to address this problem 50+ years ago, but the ponzi scheme of endless growth was already in high gear by then, and the extremely wealthy weren't going to put up with such nonsense.

Reply

[-]

crankycrassus@reddit

Endless is growth is cancer. I don't understand how anyone sees it differently.

Reply

[-]

SidKafizz@reddit

It's because the vast bulk of us are non-thinkers who just do what people have always done: make more humans. The people at the top might see it, but they don't want to give up their phony baloney "jobs".

Reply

[-]

md54short@reddit

100% this EVs are a false hope. The government is going to start heavily subsidizing them which will bring down the price but at what cost? Our schools are already broke and defunded. Stupid people scream how we’re teaching kids to be gay in school. No national healthcare to speak of but we got 7 trillion dollars for EV subsidies. This system of everyone driving everywhere in there own personal auto works great for the oil and auto industry but it’s killing us. We need to make suburbs more walkable.

Reply

[-]

salikabbasi@reddit

>We need to make suburbs more walkable. Na we need to make suburbs unviable. Give lanes on multiple lane stroads away to public transport and make owning personal vehicles punishing. It's the only thing that works. Over time, the only place that'll make sense to move to is closer to cities, and personal tanks will be a nuisance that's only utilitarian if you're in a rural community or stupid enough to pay commercial taxes and parking fees to show off that you own a car.

Reply

[-]

Square-Custard@reddit

I don’t like cars either, but I really don’t want these faux friendly smart cities with no privacy, where you live in a badly built box above a mart, no pets allowed. And all the carbon you save in your whole life by eating vegan and religiously sorting your recycling is spent in 5 minutes by an Important Billionaire who owns TikFlix, while your shoes are falling apart from all the walking you’re doing to try to stay healthy. (Healthcare is far away and expensive)

Reply

[-]

salikabbasi@reddit

those are knock on issues from middle income flying out of cities to be in suburbs where real estate and quality of life is cheap and turning the screws on workers and young lifestylists trying to live it up in cities. a lot of this goes away if you just make it increasingly harder to force people between choosing commuting or rent. It takes pain to get to a better place from here. There are any number of european, asian and latin american cities that manage a better quality of life without making it a giant burden to not be tied to a car.

Reply

[-]

Square-Custard@reddit

I don’t know if we’re talking on the same issues. My point is that forcing people into cities means increased “demand” for basic, soulless, cramped apartments that may as well be offices, with cheap construction causing ongoing issues such as mould or low water pressure, and yet these places are marketed as modern lifestyle choices charging above average rent. So while cramming people into cities may solve the issues of too many cars, if it creates depressing living conditions that’s not ok. You lose privacy, you and your neighbors can see each other on the tiny balconies so you put up screens; neighbors are many but you remain strangers with 99% of them, and there is overall low energy. Tldr: The idea that you can just sweep people from rural communities to urban boxes is not realistic.

Reply

[-]

salikabbasi@reddit

That's not because of reality, it's because the alternatives are a lot cheaper and corporate property sitting empty that people borrow against and infrastructure for parking and cars and NIMBYism in communities that would serve as midtown but are almost entirely single home properties for rich people. The same reason why buses are cheaper and less of a burden on roads and commuters is why urban living is actually cheaper and less burdensome for people who need to live or work around cities. More people in a larger area is just a better use of space, by sheer virtue of being able to use vertical space. That you associate it with living in a box vs living in a community with green areas and local shops is your problem, it's nothing to do with reality. That's not how most of the world lives. 80% of people in cities live in apartments. People have access to everything you'd need to live a full and reasonable life. You're misinformed. Good zoning and actual urban planning instead doesn't make for a runaway housing crisis.

Reply

[-]

Square-Custard@reddit

Ok, you can carry on assuming I don’t know anything and don’t read about this stuff as part of my job and am not surrounded by these kinds of projects in whatever country you think I’m in.

Reply

[-]

salikabbasi@reddit

I was a regular at urban planning conferences and agenda meetings for years, it's not to do with whether it's realistic, it's just about political will, primarily because of rich hoarders and corporate leases that development into livable communities is so complicated in the US. Please say something falsifiable or just agree to disagree, nobody is buying anything like 'it's complicated and unrealistic' anymore. Not the vast majority of people who live in cities nor actual urban planners agree with you.

Reply

[-]

Bacontoad@reddit

We should have focused our research spending on water electrolysis.

Reply

[-]

Watusi_Muchacho@reddit

Yeah, wtf happened to THAT option?

Reply

[-]

dysfunctionalpress@reddit

if we spent lots of money on electrolysis- why would we ship pure hydrogen gas across the ocean, rather than making it on site from the ocean water..?

Reply

[-]

newser_reader@reddit

Nah, the gas leaks out and it is a terrible overall efficency. Main thing to focus on is reducing vehicle weights and doing more stuff locally (including manufacture).

Reply

[-]

Bacontoad@reddit

*Very* interesting. Thanks for sharing!

Reply

[-]

bytegalaxies@reddit

WE NEED TRAINS, RAILWAYS, AND BUSES!!! EVs are good for if you gotta drive but not being so car dependant in the first place is much better

Reply

[-]

newser_reader@reddit

Not true. Just get people on bikes. E-bikes have completely changed the equation when it comes to less-abled people being able to get around by bike and they are a viable solution for all (sometimes it is a trike, but you get my point).

Reply

[-]

bytegalaxies@reddit

why not both? I have several physical health problems and would much rather take a bus if possible and it would also be great for travelling further distance.

Reply

[-]

sfhitz@reddit

A lot of people cite last mile transport as a reason to not take public transportation. Trains with a car for bike storage could vastly expand the travelable areas even in a shitty transit system.

Reply

[-]

bytegalaxies@reddit

this is true!

Reply

[-]

crankycrassus@reddit

Preach dude. We need more walkable communities. There needs to be a mandate that severely limits work commutes. If a job can be work from home and there is no walkabilty or accessible public transit to the office, than it should be mandated to be work from home. It's insane we are even debating work from home vs going into offices. It's not a debate. We either stop needlessly commuting to jobs or we die. I mean, there's more to it than that, but that a huge part of the issue.

Reply

[-]

newser_reader@reddit

We don't need walkable communities. We just need to protect cyclists from drivers (eg by allowing open carry if you're on a bike).

Reply

[-]

crazylamb452@reddit

The War on Cars (literally)

Reply

[-]

crankycrassus@reddit

Maybe both. Just less cars. It's so bad. Not just for the environment. But for the community.

Reply

[-]

MuelDaddyLongLegs@reddit

The cost? Tire pollution alone looks like it can cause total biological sterility and collapse

Reply

[-]

Less-Country-2767@reddit

People only focus on pollution coming out of the tailpipe but they don't think about millions of tires all grinding along the road surface every day, releasing toxic dust into the air, water, and soil. And EVs are heavier than ICE cars which means bigger tires that wear out faster.

Reply

[-]

newser_reader@reddit

electric cars are bigger than ICE cars. not all EVs have four wheels.

Reply

[-]

salikabbasi@reddit

They're also louder above 30 mph than ICE cars in the same class. Surprise, most traffic noise isn't engines but road/tire noise.

Reply

[-]

MuelDaddyLongLegs@reddit

Yep…and most people have zero clue where there batteries come from, where the metals and plastics in their cars come from and all the energy it takes along the way to make a car. EVs are obviously better than normal cars but there’s a reason r/fuckcars is extremely popular and growing every day

Reply

[-]

creekfreeek@reddit

The glaring issue is that people *have* to have a new car. Any car from the early 00s, 90s, 80s, and before has a significantly lower environment impact simply it's been around longer. No EV can ever complete with the green-ness of a W123 diesel, and you hardly see them on the road.

Reply

[-]

MuelDaddyLongLegs@reddit

Ya…my wife’s Toyota weighs 2300 lbs as well….gets 40 mpg so easily but we would be killed by many other suburban car mom SUVs if an accident were to happen. Some of these new fucking trucks can’t even see over the hood enough to see our very reliable little put put car

Reply

[-]

Deguilded@reddit

Tell every condo corp and every renter they have to put a fast-charging station for every parking spot because all the cars will be EV. Upping their breaker panel and running new lines whereever necessary. Good luck.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> Tell every condo corp and every renter they have to install a fast-charging station in every parking spot because all the cars will be EV Then tell every electric utility company to vastly expand their existing grid to prepare for massive new energy demands, and to do so without increasing emissions.

Reply

[-]

Nice-Ad-2792@reddit

EVs batteries are very bad for the environment, and when they inevitably break down, automakers will make easier to buy a new car rather replace the batteries, which lead to huge amounts of e-waste. Planned obsolescence is fucking over the planet too.

Reply

[-]

PandaBoyWonder@reddit

> We need to make suburbs more walkable. There should be a strip mall with grocery store, gym, hair salon, and other basic need stores, in the center of every suburban neighborhood. There was a luxury apartment complex built near me that DOES have a grocery store and other stores right next to it, easily walkable with sidewalks, and ive heard so many people talk about how they love living there because of those amenities. The problem is that its a whole foods and its expensive, because the apartments are expensive. So it only "works" (maximizes profit) when its upper middle class residents...

Reply

[-]

filbertsgaming1@reddit

I gotta figure out how to petition the town to build a sidewalk down the main road in my area. Perfect route to walk to all the main amenities. Except it is currently a dirt path right next to a 45 mph road. Like 1-2 feet away close. The detour around this dirt path is about 1/2 mile. Just 5 feet paved would make the short route much safer. It is right next to a forest preserve too, it doesn't seem excessive to open a foot transit for hundreds of homes. I don't understand how it hasn't been done already.

Reply

[-]

MuelDaddyLongLegs@reddit

Bezos owned whole paycheck now, Whole Foods is dying

Reply

[-]

Deguilded@reddit

The "new thing" round my parts seems to be to build a multi-level apartment but set the ground floor aside for small retail. It seems to get consumed by hair salons, barber shops and very occasionally food. But mostly hair.

Reply

[-]

AppearanceHeavy6724@reddit

yeah, I live in a large ex-USSR city. I have 2 supermarkets and 4 normal (not junk only) foodstores in a mile radius. Also computer parts store, bookstore, 2 big parks, many small parks, countless food joints everything can be walked to. 10 y ago briefly lived in US suburbs and it was terrible. Once cops stopped me asking why I am walking to the Target, not driving.

Reply

[-]

md54short@reddit

Yea I’ve lived in two different areas now. The first one had a strip mall w a grocery store, drug store, haircut place, bar and a couple other restaurants. It really was convenient. The second place in at now I have a pretty similar setup and pretty similar distance but the walk is god awful. I have to cross two major roads and then basically walk along the road for a bit. It feels super sketchy and pushes me to drive.

Reply

[-]

echoGroot@reddit

You mean like $100 billion?

Reply

[-]

endadaroad@reddit

I drive an EV, but I live in a rural area about 2 miles from nearest neighbor, 15 miles from the nearest shopping. Grocery, bank, auto parts, hardware. There is no availability of public transportation, nearest bus stop is 35 miles away. I have trouble even going to the big city any more (250 mi), but if there was public transportation available, even from Alamosa to Denver, I would use it. Actually, the $7 trillion in subsidies go to oil, not EVs. [Take those subsidies away](https://www.starting-gun.com/) and nobody can afford gasoline. Put that money in public transport and building insulation and we don't need very much fossil fuel.

Reply

[-]

Ezekiel_29_12@reddit

Prices will rise to redirect those subsidies to profit.

Reply

[-]

Shadow_banisher@reddit

Capitalism in a finite world seems to not work to well, but sure we won’t know till it drops.

Reply

[-]

Yensil314@reddit

Endless growth isn't sustainable, and I'm tired of pretending it is.

Reply

[-]

E-Humboldt@reddit

You know that something is wrong when you can imagine the end of the world but not the end of capitalism

Reply

[-]

BeebleBopp@reddit

Poorly thought out reaction to perceived climate change as realized in Climate Alarmism will ruin the lives of billions (mostly the poor), and quite possibly kill millions. Actual climate change will kill no one. The "collapse" will be due to humanity's weakness in the face of of normal weather climate changes, as opposed to \*all\* the generations before the current ones - or even entire civilizations - just dealt with it by strength, technology, and innovation. Most Climate Alarmists don't believe in God - which is fine and their choice - but simultaneously they act like they are entitled to - and rather ironically God owes them - a static little perfect planet Earth where struggle against any climate change isn't necessary. As if their "Benevolent" State Government controls... the Earth... and the Universe... Not. Critically. Capable. Of. Thinking. Independently. And to Climate Alarmists, \*any\* change to the climate is \*bad\*, and \*must\* be... Climate Alarmists also are the extreme anti-progressives - they have no vision of a world 100 years from now when most power is generated by future technologies of fusion power and geo-thermal and space-based solar transmitted by microwaves, and everyone is cranking their AC and heat and even the poor are living comfortably globally, and the Earth absorbs the temporary CO2 emission burp like any other of the burps that have occurred over the last 4.5 billion years. Gosh, how \*did\* Earth \*even survive\* without us Climate Alarmists and AOC and Greta being around to tend to Earth's every need? Yeah. Huh. Please, figure that one out, why dontchya. Please, please, \*pleeease\*/.. put some mental effort into answering that question before gulping down the depression soaking this arena. Climate Alarmists won't be happy until millions are suffering, because they hate energy companies so much. And, sadly, they don't think too much for themselves, having been conned into groupthink of large media organizations. Sorry, but it is clearly the Climate Alarmists who lead us to collapse, while true enterprisers are our saviors, no matter what the universe throws at us.

Reply

[-]

MightyBigMinus@reddit

its so annoying how everything everywhere is always just so fucking stupid there are plenty of metals. the mining it would take to switch to solar/wind/batteries is \*less\* than the mining we do today of coal. the real reasons growth based capitalism needs to go are mass extinctions (inc fisheries collapse), topsoil depletion, microplastics/pfas/etc, and more. being a mindless contrarian about technology is fetishizing it just as much as being mindlessly optimistic about it. either way you're wrong and dumb.

Reply

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

How much lithium and rare earth elements are estimated to be available? How much would it take to give every family on the planet an electric car? If the second number is more than the first, then as developing nations improve their standard of living we will eventually run out of the stuff. If of course you do *not* have these numbers at hand to make the comparison, it would be evidence your statement "there are plenty of metals" was simply pulled out of your ass.

Reply

[-]

MightyBigMinus@reddit

"an electric car for every family" is an idiotic goal you typed out, no one else if you want a very quick visual version this helps people understand how trivial lithium is. we will 10 - 100x it and it still won't be a top-10: [https://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MetalsMined.jpeg](https://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/MetalsMined.jpeg) if you want to go deeper here's a four-video playlist of nearly two hours of excruciatingly detailed analysis of the lithium supply chain, very up to date only a couple months old: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqF\_OZJSbxY&list=PLyvdbTy3v1d4QDNkr8uXoWyfY58SvMaPP

Reply

[-]

systemofaderp@reddit

There is plenty of lithium, but currently it's mostly mined in sub-human conditions. Extracting it more humanly would be possible, if corporations would invest. Currently it looks as though sodium batteries will take over soon. They are cheaper and better for the environment and from those numbers everyone could have a battery for their car. But cars still poison us with tires, take lots of energy to produce and destroy culture and country.

Reply

[-]

Potential_Seaweed509@reddit

There may be theoretically lots of metals in the earth’s crust, but the density of deposits and their diffusion throughout the crust make them a lot more difficult to economically (to say nothing of environmentally or ethically) extract. Hence the name “rare earth minerals“. Simon Michaux gave an informative interview about this problem here [https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/19-simon-michauxhttps://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/19-simon-michaux](https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/19-simon-michauxhttps://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/19-simon-michaux) . It’s worth a listen. He covers the mineral extraction discovery and EROI (engery return on investment) problem pretty well. There’s an annotated list of topics in the link and timestamps if you wanna skip ahead to anything.

Reply

[-]

sirkatoris@reddit

Yep he is a great source. He is trying to get reality out there but unsurprisingly people don’t want to hear it.

Reply

[-]

IchabodChris@reddit

that japanese marxist degrowth book can't come out soon enough

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

Am looking foward to reading *Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto* by Kohei Saito, the author of *Marx in the Anthropocene.* Coming out in the US in January 2024.

Reply

[-]

Jason_Batemans_Hair@reddit

The problem with anti-capitalism is that no one has a feasible, better system.

Reply

[-]

EmptyCanvass@reddit

Honestly I see this as a win. Humans are disgusting and need to go. My last thought as the smog fills my lungs and the oceans flood my home and I fade into oblivion will be “worth it”

Reply

[-]

NyriasNeo@reddit

Capitalism does not need "saving" because no one can destroy it at this point. And certainly not posts on the internet. In fact, I challenge anyone here to try. But I bet in 5 years, we are still ordering doordash and watching netflix while buying cheap trinkets on Amazon. And that is why the collapse is inevitable.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit

Inb4 the neoliberal doomers in this sub unironically argue that the only way to reduce emissions and damage is to massively lower people's living standards because they unironically think consuming products Yank style is the only way to lead a worthwhile life

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> the neoliberal doomers in this sub unironically argue that the only way to reduce emissions and damage is to massively lower people's living standards Again with this? Have you taken the time to familiarize yourself with the basic ecological science shared in the sidebar yet, or are you here to post more unsourced rhetoric again?

Reply

[-]

Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit

I'll do that the moment the people here stop *exclusively preferencing the most catastrophic predictions* and take even a single fraction of a second of their day to look into the writings of literally anyone but rich white men with regards to solutions to the problem. Is that a fair deal?

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> the people here stop exclusively preferencing the most catastrophic predictions and take even a single fraction of a second of their day to look into the writings of literally anyone but rich white men with regards to solutions For a one month-old account, you seem to have some strong demands about this sub changing its views and theme. Pass.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit

And also I just remember when this subreddit wasn't /r/EcoFascists, but either way I'm not shocked an extremely homogenously middle class white subreddit on an extremely homogenously middle class white website would trend towards ecofascism in response to the ecological crisis, honestly I would truthfully never expect *anything* else of well-off white westerners than embracing the swastika the second life seems like it might become somewhat difficult

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

>I just remember when this subreddit wasn't /r/EcoFascists, Your are again showing your lack of education on the topic. Please refer to this sub's Mods' very eloquent post on this topic. *Overpopulation, a contentious issue that reliably attracts rulebreaking and bad faith arguments, as well as personal attacks. We are regularly forced to lock threads, remove comments, and ban users at much higher than normal rates.* *We have noticed ongoing waves of bad faith attacks that insist that any identification or naming of human overpopulation as one of the issues contributing to the environmental crisis, as a human predicament, is itself a racist, quasi-colonial attack on the peoples of the third world, claiming it is an implicitly genocidal take because an identification of overpopulation leads inexorably to a basket of "solutions" which contains only fascist, murderous tools.* *First, the insistence that population concerns cannot be addressed without murder is provably false in light of history's demonstrations that lasting reductions in fertility are most effectively achieved by the education, uplifting, and liberation of women and girls and the ready availability of contraceptive technology.* *Second, identification of an environmental problem does not inherently require there to be any solution at all. Some predicaments cannot be solved, but that does not mean it is evil, tyrannical, or heretical to notice, name, and mourn them.* *We do not believe observable reality has an ecofascist bent, nor do we believe it is credible to require our users to ignore that only 4% of all terrestrial mammalian biomass remains wild, with 96% either humans or our livestock. We will not silence our users' mourning of the vanishing beauty of the natural world, nor will we enable bad faith attacks that insist any defense of, or even observation of, the current state of wild nature in light of a human enterprise in massive overshoot is inherently and irredeemably racist.* *Our human numbers are still larger every day than they have ever been, and while technologically advanced consumption is a weightier factor causing the narrower issue of climate change, the issues of vanishing biodiversity and habitat loss, and the sixth mass extinction as a whole, are not so easily laid solely at the feet of rich economies and capitalism.* *In summary, while we have no clear solutions for convincing humanity to pull itself out of its purposeful ecological nosedive, we remain committed to our mission to protect one of the few venues for these extremely challenging conversations. In light of this, we will no longer allow bad faith claims that identifying human population as an environmental issue is inherently racist to be used to shut down discussions. We will use the tools at our disposal to enforce this policy, and users should consider themselves warned.* https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims#wiki_mod_team_comment_on_overpopulation_posts

Reply

[-]

Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit

If the mods intend to actively enforce malthusianism I have no desire to interact with this sub in any capacity ever. Sayonara, /r/EcoFascism

Reply

[-]

collapse-ModTeam@reddit

Hi, Turbulent-Fig-3123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/16p8in8/-/k1qpzti/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.

Reply

[-]

Sharukurusu@reddit

Do you disagree with the premise of carrying capacity as a concept or just some proposals to deal with it?

Reply

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

Reply

[-]

collapse-ModTeam@reddit

Hi, Turbulent-Fig-3123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/16p8in8/-/k1rso0k/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.

Reply

[-]

breaducate@reddit

Plenty of leftists recognise the necessity of a reduction of both quality of life (in particular for first worlders) and population that will be imposed on us by circumstances that are now beyond our control. This is the world we live in now. Capital won too much for too long, and the [petri dish](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY) is half full. We've practised infinite growth on a finite planet for too long. If that weren't bad enough in and of itself, we've doubled down on producing food based on a finite resource we're racing to consume the last easily reachable drop of and our population graph has gone hockey-stick. Also, what *neoliberal* doomers are you even talking about? This is a contradiction in terms. The ideology of business as usual is not the stuff of doomerism.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit

>What neoliberal doomers are you talking about? All doomers are neoliberals or fascists, doomerism is just the other side to the coin of "There is no alternative", Doomers only exist to convince people that the alternative to capitalism is death, and that the inevitable end of capitalism is synonymous with death. Doomerism exists for one reason and one reason only, to psychologically prime white people for genocide in defense of the Sovereign capital system

Reply

[-]

breaducate@reddit

Holy shit radlibs really will come up with anything to 'resist capitalism' without giving up their treats. This kind of conspiracism is the stuff of fascists. It's like saying communism exists to trick people into destroying civilisation. It couldn't possibly be the result of a sober and earnest systemic analysis of the present state of things. It must be the work of THEM.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit

No, more like doomerism, that disgusting privileged coward approach to the ecological crisis, allows white people to do what they've always done so far about climate change, fucking nothing, you spent 30 years denying there even was a problem, now you'll spend the next 30 years telling everyone nothing can be done and brownies like me need to prepare for when you and your neighbors put us in death camps and gas us This is why you are a doomer, it allows you to continue doing what you've done for your whole life, **nothing**

Reply

[-]

collapse-ModTeam@reddit

Hi, Turbulent-Fig-3123. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/16p8in8/-/k1qbb6p/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 1: In addition to enforcing [Reddit's content policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy), we will also remove comments and content that is abusive or predatory in nature. You may attack each other's ideas, not each other. Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.

Reply

[-]

breaducate@reddit

Well that's a bit presumptuous of you. It's not like I've been socially isolated in this land of the lotus eaters for having a conscience and trying to convince and motivate even a handful of people of the need for action outside of the lines drawn by the ruling class or anything. I didn't learn the hard way about the reactionary brainrot infesting most of the people I used to call friend and watch them drift away as I tried fruitlessly to turn them away from the dark path. I definitely didn't go join in helping the people most firmly under the boot directly or participate in protests or anything like that. Nope, wasn't me.

Reply

[-]

Turbulent-Fig-3123@reddit

I deleted my previous Reddit account to start fresh without weirdos commenting on my posting history, but I've used reddit since 2014

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

Not a fair deal when your premise is overtly racist; sorry.

Reply

[-]

ElScrotoDeCthulo@reddit

Depopulate

Reply

[-]

Martofunes@reddit

Yeah and in the midtime, the people who live around these rare metals, are cancer riddened, can't drink water from the ground so they have to pay for bottle watter, and it's a shithole.

Reply

[-]

pastebluepaste@reddit

Cos china’s so green?

Reply

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

China's a capitalist nation too, so no.

Reply

[-]

Bellegante@reddit

Like, what, just flip the capitalism off switch? I'm curious to know what that looks like logistically. Like, what's the plan that accomplishes that goal?

Reply

[-]

yeah_yeah_a_nickname@reddit

Capitalism is the cause of collapses (climate is just one of tem) in general, if we stay idle and just watch it go, the system would collapse itself. Unless someone prove the opposite (and by prove, i mean researching deep into the matter instead of scratch the surface with few polemic authors), socialism is the best alternative

Reply

[-]

zioxusOne@reddit

Unless you make saving the Earth very profitable.

Reply

[-]

RadioMelon@reddit

I literally just saw a Hill article today on why they want to aggressively push "carbon capture" We're doomed if we keep believing in this nonsense.

Reply

[-]

baconraygun@reddit

Yes, a bunch more machines to do the reverse of a bunch of other machines. Having no machines to pump out carbon we don't need the machine that pumps in carbon.

Reply

[-]

IntrepidHermit@reddit

Denialism and hopism are the tools of idiots at this point. It's so frustrating.

Reply

[-]

BarkBarkLooneyTunes@reddit

You guys over here in collapse know about beef production being one of the biggest contributors to greenhouse gasses? Just curious if there’s a large amount of plant based eaters here for environmental reasons considering how many people are concerned with climate problems on this sub

Reply

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

I've been vegan for 8 years but the climate still changed.

Reply

[-]

BarkBarkLooneyTunes@reddit

No shit lol unfortunately individuals can’t stop everything. Glad to here you avoid contributing though, respect

Reply

[-]

AccomplishedBat8731@reddit

I think it’s also inevitable if we assume everyone gets to live

Reply

[-]

BTRCguy@reddit

I have been assured that if we get rid of capitalism people will automatically need less food and their homes will not have to be kept as warm in the winter or cool in the summer, water will flow to where it is needed and away from where it is not, and the global climate will automatically shift to something more comfortable out of gratitude. So yes, getting rid of capitalism *will* fix everything. I believe we also get a free pony.

Reply

[-]

AndrewSChapman@reddit

I wasn't sold until you mentioned the free pony. Sign me up!

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

> the global climate will automatically shift to something more comfortable out of gratitude. Involuntary mental image of the giggling Baby Sun from *The Teletubbies.*

Reply

[-]

rexspook@reddit

The only real fix is to reduce consumption and that’ll never happen because line must go up

Reply

[-]

TravelingCuppycake@reddit

Let’s say we switch all cars to electric and magically could make that happen.. the tires cause an insane amount of pollution, too. No one has some eco technology solution for that though..

Reply

[-]

creekfreeek@reddit

A much better idea is to buy that '95 Festiva you saw on Marketplace.

Reply

[-]

Hemorrhoid_Eater@reddit

What if we made the tires out of metal, like steel? And while we're at it, make the roads out of steel too, to reduce rolling resistance? And instead of using batteries, we should just put up some wires that the cars can connect to for a constant supply of power while moving. Hell, we can even build the cars bigger so that they carry more people at a time, and can be chained together. Sounds a lot more clean and efficient, no? I dunno, just some really crazy idea I had. It sounds stupid though, so I'm pretty sure no one's made something like it.

Reply

[-]

TravelingCuppycake@reddit

That’s the worst part, it didn’t have to be this way but we insisted individual autos were absolutely necessary no matter the cost.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

Agree re. tire pollution which has already severely contaminated many ecosystems. But the entire promise of EVs for everyone was never serious; even the energy grids of developed nations cannot provide that level of charging for that number of vehicles (let alone what the demands on the grid will be during the hotter climate that will soon be here).

Reply

[-]

passwordispassword8@reddit

Well, yeah, because nobody wants to be the politician to say "what we really need is less people on earth"

Reply

[-]

ditchdiggergirl@reddit

People need to go back and reread Malthus. He was wrong about so many things; many of his social views are abhorrent to us today, and his predictions about resource limits were wildly off, in retrospect. Nevertheless, he wasn’t wrong in the fundamentals. The planet has a limited carrying capacity, and it was unforeseen technological advances that allowed us to expand far beyond anything he imagined possible. However that technology depends on capitalism. The ‘green revolution’ that currently feeds 8 billion depends on fossil fuels, and food distribution depends on capitalism. We learned to extract more resources to support more people. Stop extracting resources and most people die. We’re stuck. Reforming capitalism would in theory help, if we could figure out how to stop the hoarding at the top. But we still need to extract the resources. Of course I was just kidding about rereading Malthus. That’s an academic exercise useful to few; there are modern thinkers who bring the ideas he is known for into a modern context with modern constraints and realities.

Reply

[-]

PervyNonsense@reddit

Hilariously, all we ever needed to do was price the waste CO2 from burning fossil fuels to match the cost of removing it. If we'd done this in the 90's, we would have solved climate change (ideally, we'd have started earlier, but Kyoto was our last chance), potentially kept these migrants everyone is so panicked about where they came from, and even preserve capitalism by providing a way to make money by doing the right thing. Carbon taxes are only taxes if bottle deposits are taxes. They're a recoverable surcharge to dissuade people from bad behavior without using the firm hand of punishment or enforcement to get the job done. This was the only capitalism-friendly fix, and remains that way (we have to stop burning fossil fuels so the value for our money needs to be attached to work being done on a similar scale, like carbon sequestration and destruction of refrigerants while poorer countries could trade their budgeted carbon to the West). But it's that word "tax" and the way politicians, who clearly don't have the faintest idea what's going on, frame it that makes it unappealing because they're not presenting the other alternatives... which, so far, are extinction. That's our plan. That's what this is. Capitalism works as long as we're paying the right price for the stuff that causes harm. If we're not paying anything for it, it becomes the only feedstock of value where the byproducts are considered benign. We have all the superfund sites to prove that, when the cost of waste disposal is appropriate, people stop pouring it out on the ground. We had this! We didn't even need to be aware of the problem, all we needed was the courage to apply the basics of economics to the problem and it would have solved itself. Downsides for early adoption include: redistribution of wealth through a carbon trade system, actual monitoring and setting enforceable limits to carbon release, and the development of an economy built around cleaning up after the standard manufacturing economy. When we find out that carbon capture and storage doesn't work, the cost of at-scale direct air capture isn't a failure of the process, it's the cost of carbon that should be applied to burning it. If it's $5k/ton, that means we make more money reducing carbon emissions than burning the oil. Never let them convince you that carbon capture and storage "doesn't work" because it's too expensive! That is the actual cost of burning oil, which makes it an OBSCENELY underpriced fuel. Just like "tax" is used to make it sound ridiculous, whatever the price of direct air capture is the appropriate global price for carbon. Tl;dr- capitalism could have fixed this, we just chose greed and left the cost of carbon out of the economics of oil... because if we hadnt, it would have been a solid economic argument to leave it in the ground.

Reply

[-]

Red01a18@reddit

That’s why I stop worrying myself with climate change, it’s happening and nothing, no governments or anyone is gonna change things until they are real bad. So just try to make the most of it, be respectful to the environment as much as you can and try to live happy.

Reply

[-]

NyriasNeo@reddit

Climate collapse is inevitable whether we try to save capitalism or not. Human is naturally greedy and apathetic. We are not going to banned together to solve a worldwide problem even if there is no capitalism. Heck, tribalism, greed, war, exploitation were mainstays of human history long before capitalism. Capitalism is just the pinnacle expression of said human nature.

Reply

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

I fundamentally disagree that human nature is how you describe. A capitalist system rewards selfishness and sociopathy and I believe many aspects of it go against our nature. The problem is that enough good people stood aside and allowed the psychopaths to own everything. Then the only way to become successful in such a system is to *act* selfishly and sociopathic. Most of the 90% at the bottom of society are not greedy.

Reply

[-]

RoughHornet587@reddit

And what's your solution?. The whole workers paradise nonsense didn't work either. Again, another form of the elites just ran the whole system.

Reply

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

>And what's your solution?. I'm here to make memes and propose solutions, and I'm all out of solutions.

Reply

[-]

Farnswirth@reddit

> if we try to save capitalism too And the alternative is... what, exactly? Socialism? Communism? Monarchy? Theocracy? Anarchy? Yeah, capitalism sucks. But all the alternatives are so much worse. And if you think "one of these things is not like the others", rooting for a socialist future, just remember that 90% of what happened during covid was due to socialist policies.

Reply

[-]

SidKafizz@reddit

It's inevitable for any -ism that fails to deal with our birthrate, regardless.

Reply

[-]

MBA922@reddit

The simplest definition of capitalism, and the one CNBC and politicians supporting capitalism "means", is the supremacy of the investor and oligarch class. Producing more stuff is humanist (and not exclusive to capitalist ideology). Free and fair markets where people help each other is humanist. Dynamism where you are allowed to compete and improve the world through better products/ideas is humanist. Where saving capitalism means saving oil companies through luxury gay space communism just for the oligarchs and their concubine politicians, then sure climate and civilization will collapse. But mineral production for renewables has a very high EROI (solar is 100x return on energy invested). The more renewables, the more mining process can run on electricity and green hydrogen.

Reply

[-]

SolarMines@reddit

Keep stacking silver! Gonna moon once solar panels get really popular

Reply

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

Are solar panels not popular? We have entire fields filled with them where I live. At least half the houses have them on their roof.

Reply

[-]

SolarMines@reddit

That's only in developed countries. What I meant was when most of the world starts switching to clean energy like solar and nuclear once fossil fuels start running out and they get too expensive to be profitable.

Reply

[-]

gangstasadvocate@reddit

Yeah, it’s crazy, people are kind of aware, but are really putting all their hope into technology technology technology https://reddit.com/r/singularity/s/AnxxT4eejd

Reply

[-]

Heathen753@reddit

So... what should we do? We cannot force all companies in the world to bankrupt and make billions of people jobless to save the environment. If we did that, we will die now. So... maybe we should destroy the environment? That way, we can at least live for a few more years. Let's be honest here, if not even renewable energy could save us from extinction due to climate change, nothing will. And if nothing can save the environment (and then, save us), then would it be better to destroy the environment for the present pleasure?

Reply

[-]

Grognard68@reddit

Maybe we're Zucked either way...

Reply

[-]

ponderingaresponse@reddit

We will end up with a civilization that uses half the energy we use now. The choice is about how we get there.

Reply

[-]

GalaxyBejdyk@reddit

That's what first world gets for doing away with nuclear energy.

Reply

[-]

fiulrisipitor@reddit

And replace it with what? People complain all the time that they are poor under capitalism, supposedly they would like it if they could buy even more stuff, but capitalism actually limits them

Reply

[-]

breaducate@reddit

Ah yes, the mode of production that brought you planned obsolescence and the arbitrary destruction of unsold commodities to keep prices up limits consumption/production.

Reply

[-]

fiulrisipitor@reddit

yes, deal with it.

Reply

[-]

theclitsacaper@reddit

lol wait so you're agreeing with them? but also saying it like you won the argument

Reply

[-]

breaducate@reddit

So we're doing the "nuh-uh!" level of political discourse. Good job, friend. Keep representing your political ideology.

Reply

[-]

Ruby2312@reddit

I think this is more along the line of capitalism gonna kill us all so either it go away or we all going to die. Peoples seem to like capitalism than their and their childrends lives thought so i guess we gonna kill ourselves than

Reply

[-]

TeeKu13@reddit

The only way I could see capitalism working is if we have ecological capitalism as the bridge so as to not cause chaos. Those helping the quality of our ecological life get paid much more and caps are placed on those doing not so good things.

Reply

[-]

haragoshi@reddit

Transportation is only around 14% of emissions. The other big polluters are industry, electricity/heating, and agriculture. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/global_emissions_sector_2015.png

Reply

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

Also, we don't even count what the US military produces.

Reply

[-]

theclitsacaper@reddit

Not to mention how the military murders millions around the world in order to further the business interests of oil corps.

Reply

[-]

MrMonstrosoone@reddit

Newsflash collapse is inevitable whether we try to save capitalism or not

Reply

[-]

Bellybutton_fluffjar@reddit (OP)

Yeah. But collapse to what? Complete extinction of everything except bacteria and plant life or maybe hanging on to a a few hundred million people and a fraction of the other billions of species.

Reply

[-]

FivePoopMacaroni@reddit

Lol Reddit is great. A couple of people declaring the world is collapsing debating how to prepare appropriately for the downfall.

Reply

[-]

breaducate@reddit

Thought terminating cliches that include the word reddit are the most reddit thing to ever reddit.

Reply

[-]

FivePoopMacaroni@reddit

Ooh good content for the memoir you'll write in your bunker

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

>collapse is inevitable whether we try to save capitalism or not This is obvious to anyone with a basic familiarity with ecological science, but an artificial division is still frequently debated here in this sub. 1. If only we got rid of Capitalism and applied a more equitable system, collapse would be averted. 2. No matter what political/economic system we have, 8 billion humans in overshoot of planetary carrying capacity, intersecting with a civilization built on fossil fuels, is causing collapse. It often appears that many people seem to prefer #1 based on emotional bias or political affiliation rather than awareness of the actual issues.

Reply

[-]

breaducate@reddit

Or you could ditch your implicit premise that a sincere attempt at evidence based and more democratic rule couldn't make collapse less bad than unapologetic runaway paperclip maximization.

Reply

[-]

frodosdream@reddit

This is obvious to anyone with a basic familiarity with ecological science, but still is hotly debated here in this sub. 1. If we got rid of Capitalism, collapse would be averted. 2. No matter what political/economic system we have, 8 billion humans in overshoot of planetary carrying capacity intersecting with a civilization built on fossil fuels, is headed for collapse. IMO many people seem to prefer #1 based on emotional bias rather than awareness of the actual issues.

Reply

[-]

climate_ape@reddit

100% Only abolishing capitalism will give us a fighting chance (we will probably still not make it). A revolution is kind of inevitable.

Reply

[-]

watson895@reddit

In favour of what better system, exactly?

Reply

[-]

NOfuckstogive11@reddit

This is what I always ask myself. I can bitch for hours about the negatives of capitalism but I honestly have no idea for any alternative solutions.

Reply

[-]

climate_ape@reddit

a system that doesn't boil us alive

Reply

[-]

Straight-Lurkin@reddit

There definitely are enough rare metals. We keep finding larger untapped deposits. Absolutely to production can be made without pulling some sort of resource out of the earth. https://www.electrive.com/2023/09/14/possibly-worlds-largest-lithium-deposits-found-in-the-usa/#:~:text=A%20large%20lithium%20deposit%20has,120%20million%20tons%20of%20lithium.

Reply

[-]

Keteudvach@reddit

I think that it's either organized collapse or chaotic collapse. I don't want chaotic collapse

Reply

[-]

enkifish@reddit

Total yearly oil consumption will never go down unless industrial society ends or we run out of oil. It doesn't matter how advanced renewables become, all we will do is lock in our oil consumption at current levels. Just like the total amount of wood fuel used yearly has not appreciably changed since the 1800s, but new energy growth since then has used oil/coal/nuclear/whatever.

Reply

[-]

futurefirestorm@reddit

It is not the human way- to give up their way of life so others may survive…

Reply

[-]

mybeatsarebollocks@reddit

So say we have a tech breakthrough, like a fusion reactor or some shit and bang, we cut fossil fuels completely. Say even we figure out how to stop using oil derivatives like plastic etc. Say we start pulling carbon out the atmosphere. It will only buy us some time. We will still cook the planet. Every single piece of electronics on the planet produces heat as a byproduct. Every single piece of moving machinery or equipment produce heat as a byproduct. We produce heat as a byproduct. Any energy production method makes massive amounts of heat. Look at nuclear cooling towers. Collapse is inevitable as we have already overshot capacity.

Reply

[-]

Ezekiel_29_12@reddit

Cooking the planet can be avoided by changing the albedo of surfaces and the spectrum of thermal emission (such as tons of special paint) so that the heat is more rapidly dissipated to space. Collapse will come before that is necessary, though.

Reply

[-]

CptainJakSparrow@reddit

We need to shrink our consumption and downsize our economy, this is antithetical to Capitalism

Reply

[-]

DocFGeek@reddit

B-b-b-but trillion dollar lithium mountain. 🥺🤑

Reply

[-]

andrew_the_fox@reddit

Don’t forget global dimming

Reply

[-]

Lanracie@reddit

Global Population collapes will fix climate change.

Reply

[-]

Cyberspace667@reddit

People won’t reduce their consumption until they have no option and at that point they’ll be the most desperate selfish people in the dystopia 😄

Reply

[-]

ObssesesWithSquares@reddit

There's not enough minerals for standard tech. So we have to use alternative materials to transition.

Reply

[-]

LordTuranian@reddit

Capitalism is anti people and anti environment so yeah.

Reply

[-]

MBDowd@reddit

Climate and civilizational collapse are already well underway, accelerating, and utterly out of our control, no matter what! (Truly.) [https://postdoom.com/](https://postdoom.com/) (see both the "resources" page and the "connect" page) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-doom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-doom)

Reply

[-]

StatementBot@reddit

The following submission statement was provided by /u/Bellybutton_fluffjar: --- SS. We can't save capitalism and the climate. Related to collapse because capital is mainly created by the destruction of the planet. Over extraction of resources in order to maximise profit got us into this mess and more extraction of resources can't get us out of it. Enjoy the time we have left friends. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/16p8in8/climate_collapse_is_inevitable_if_we_try_to_save/k1p9yl4/

Reply