• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    21 year ago

    Not really. This argument is just eco-fascism.

    We could cut down on the amount we consume, and be fine with our current population, but that would make the capitalists sad, so we don’t.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Something else people don’t stop to think about is that we could also consume the same amount with a lower negative impact but just create less excess value whilst doing so. If we produced the goods people use every day to a good quality to no purpose other than because people need (want) them we could do so far more ecologically sensitively than we do now. The only difference would be that some tangentially involved rent-seeking lunatic would have to settle for a thinner coat of gold leaf on the toilet seat in the staff bathroom on their second yacht.

      There’s an astonishing amount of deadwood we can carve away from our production lines in the form of wealth production for the existing wealth class before we need to ask their serfs regular people to make sacrifices.

      Or at least there was. We’ve pushed things to such a state of emergency that we probably do now need to make every possible change on all fronts if we wish to minimise the devastation from climate change. We still need to ensure we include the main driving factors in causing these issues within that though.