Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by
the farming of animal products,
the production and consumption of energy, and
the extraction and transformation of material resources,
can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be a vegan who doesn’t take vacations, use air conditioning, fly on airplanes, or drive a car? I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.
Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.
They would simply consume less and not be as driven to consume. Capitalism drives up the consumption to ridiculous levels, greed is not actually good. We could focus the economy on needs first and ensure it exists so people can still acquire goods and services in exchange for money so no one is working for nothing. But no more wealth accumulation into the stratosphere. There’s a lot that would need to change
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s woefully inadequate. We need 20 earths just to maintain our current standard of living, and keep in mind this number rises as poverty falls.
The only and I mean the only solutions that can support our absurd population is
veganism
tech advancements bordering on magic
It’s just math. I wish things were otherwise, I really do. But that’s what we need to save the rainforests and oceans and wild fauna that are still clinging to existence. Everything else is ideology.
We know and can develop superior methods in agriculture, energy production and recycling material resources. The rapid transformation of the economy to make use of these superior methods will require state intervention and economic planning like never before seen in human history.
It is much easier to limit resource use when a certain segment of the population (the bourgeoise) are not consuming resources at 100s of times the rate of the ordinary person.
Eliminating advertising will reduce the pressure for overconsumption.
Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by […] can people explain why they believe that without capitalism
capitalist industry and commerce have been the driving force of the mass extinction of the last 500 years[0][1][2]. climate change didn’t begin until the late 1800s with the rise of tycoons, and accelerated with mass production in the mid-1900s.
can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be […]
could be, not necessarily would. because a humanistic, socialised means of production would: allow for truly ‘democratic’ control over what is produced; remove nested interests and subsidies to overgrown polluting industries[3]; and make alternatives viable without the need to bend or break to top-down market pressures and monetary policy dictated by dragons.
I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.
capitalism has existed for less than 300 years. consumerism has existed for less than 100 years. when you have an economic system which emphasises the independent individual — simultaneously a motivator and a mere cog in the machine — and posits that the mere potential to own things is the source of value: buying wasteful, exotic, unnecessary shit is a way to define yourself and your status. it’s called conspicuous consumption, and it happens from the micro to the macro in the lower and the upper classes, and there’s top-down pressure to do so to keep currency current.
i recommend the documentary The Century of the Self for an overview of the commodification of identity and culture.
Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.
we are already producing enough food to sufficiently feed 1.5x the world population[4], and could continue to do so even within planetary boundaries[5].
i didn’t cover everything here, because i recommend:
We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 1000 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory farms. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is? It’s not. So…
You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism (literally the only way to save this planet) has nothing to do with our economic system.
says the person who cannot read, ignores sources, puts words in other people’s mouths, and makes simplistic, baseless, harmful assertions.
To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory farms. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is?
i — a vegan — and the two sources i provided advocate for sustainable plant-based diets, and point to the systemic economic obstacles: agribusiness lobbying; little to no farmer control; subsidised incentives and poor farmers’ dependence on these subsidies; and severe economic and political inequality.
for every animal I don’t eat, a billionaire throws a meat party and goes hunting for exotic animals. Again, why are you blaming me? Even if I ate meat every meal I wouldn’t come close in a year to doing as much damage as a billionaire does in a day. So again, stop telling me about it and go after them.
you’re arguing for a vote-with-your-wallet approach, which ignores conspicuous consumption, ignores the plight of the lower classes, and greatly favours the wealthy elite and the state (who can always outbid you). this is not to say we shoudn’t change (our) individual behaviour, but that it cannot be the sole solution, and that there are systemic changes which would boost mass adoption of sustainable choices.
i once again point you to my book suggestion, the concept of superstructures, and to the responses to your last malthusian tangents.
if you have anything else to say: tell it to a mirror.
you’re arguing for a vote-with-your-wallet approach
You quoted someone else and then accused me of arguing for something I’m absolutely not. Did you reply to the wrong person? For the benefit of anyone who stumbles over this bizarre exchange, my question is super simple:
How will you convince 8 billion people to dramatically lower their standard of living?
Currently we are consuming about 2 earths worth of resources (if everyone lived like Americans it would be 20 earths). Obviously capitalism makes this worse, but the question remains. What then?
Once we abolish capitalism, this will raise standards of living. More people will want cars and air-conditioning and so on. More people will want to eat meat. So what’s the plan?
we are producing 1000 times the food we need
no we are not
You’re technically correct. It’s closer to 100, but my point stands.
Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by
can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be a vegan who doesn’t take vacations, use air conditioning, fly on airplanes, or drive a car? I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.
Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.
They would simply consume less and not be as driven to consume. Capitalism drives up the consumption to ridiculous levels, greed is not actually good. We could focus the economy on needs first and ensure it exists so people can still acquire goods and services in exchange for money so no one is working for nothing. But no more wealth accumulation into the stratosphere. There’s a lot that would need to change
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s woefully inadequate. We need 20 earths just to maintain our current standard of living, and keep in mind this number rises as poverty falls.
The only and I mean the only solutions that can support our absurd population is
It’s just math. I wish things were otherwise, I really do. But that’s what we need to save the rainforests and oceans and wild fauna that are still clinging to existence. Everything else is ideology.
We know and can develop superior methods in agriculture, energy production and recycling material resources. The rapid transformation of the economy to make use of these superior methods will require state intervention and economic planning like never before seen in human history.
It is much easier to limit resource use when a certain segment of the population (the bourgeoise) are not consuming resources at 100s of times the rate of the ordinary person.
Eliminating advertising will reduce the pressure for overconsumption.
capitalist industry and commerce have been the driving force of the mass extinction of the last 500 years[0][1][2]. climate change didn’t begin until the late 1800s with the rise of tycoons, and accelerated with mass production in the mid-1900s.
could be, not necessarily would. because a humanistic, socialised means of production would: allow for truly ‘democratic’ control over what is produced; remove nested interests and subsidies to overgrown polluting industries[3]; and make alternatives viable without the need to bend or break to top-down market pressures and monetary policy dictated by dragons.
capitalism has existed for less than 300 years. consumerism has existed for less than 100 years. when you have an economic system which emphasises the independent individual — simultaneously a motivator and a mere cog in the machine — and posits that the mere potential to own things is the source of value: buying wasteful, exotic, unnecessary shit is a way to define yourself and your status. it’s called conspicuous consumption, and it happens from the micro to the macro in the lower and the upper classes, and there’s top-down pressure to do so to keep currency current.
i recommend the documentary The Century of the Self for an overview of the commodification of identity and culture.
we are already producing enough food to sufficiently feed 1.5x the world population[4], and could continue to do so even within planetary boundaries[5].
i didn’t cover everything here, because i recommend:
We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 1000 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory farms. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is? It’s not. So…
You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism (literally the only way to save this planet) has nothing to do with our economic system.
no, we don’t.
no, i didn’t.
no, it isn’t.
no, it isn’t.
says the person who cannot read, ignores sources, puts words in other people’s mouths, and makes simplistic, baseless, harmful assertions.
i — a vegan — and the two sources i provided advocate for sustainable plant-based diets, and point to the systemic economic obstacles: agribusiness lobbying; little to no farmer control; subsidised incentives and poor farmers’ dependence on these subsidies; and severe economic and political inequality.
to quote another vegan in this thread who you’ve insulted:
you’re arguing for a vote-with-your-wallet approach, which ignores conspicuous consumption, ignores the plight of the lower classes, and greatly favours the wealthy elite and the state (who can always outbid you). this is not to say we shoudn’t change (our) individual behaviour, but that it cannot be the sole solution, and that there are systemic changes which would boost mass adoption of sustainable choices.
i once again point you to my book suggestion, the concept of superstructures, and to the responses to your last malthusian tangents.
if you have anything else to say: tell it to a mirror.
You quoted someone else and then accused me of arguing for something I’m absolutely not. Did you reply to the wrong person? For the benefit of anyone who stumbles over this bizarre exchange, my question is super simple:
How will you convince 8 billion people to dramatically lower their standard of living?
Currently we are consuming about 2 earths worth of resources (if everyone lived like Americans it would be 20 earths). Obviously capitalism makes this worse, but the question remains. What then?
Once we abolish capitalism, this will raise standards of living. More people will want cars and air-conditioning and so on. More people will want to eat meat. So what’s the plan?
You’re technically correct. It’s closer to 100, but my point stands.