this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
305 points (86.2% liked)

Communism

1709 readers
406 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] puntyyoke@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Human caused environmental devastation didn't start in the 1600s, capitalism did. I don't think humans are a virus, but I don't think that abolishing capitalism is the only critical step in preventing environmental catastrophe.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We've been here 200,000 years, we've been farming for the last 12,000 of those. Environmental destruction is, reletively, a very very new phenomenon.

[–] puntyyoke@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That's an a-historical point of view. There have been several environmental catastrophes, including some causing massive climactic shifts introduced by prehistoric humans, some of them are documented in 1491, by Charles Mann. Poor farming practices, including some that have been practiced for thousands of years, are a huge factor in desertification. I completely agree that the rate and scale of environmental catastrophe is new, but the risk of it and tendency towards it is not. While I think capitalism is ABSOLUTELY the single greatest barrier to addressing the catastrophe, the scale and speed of that catastrophe could be just as easily tied to population growth as the emergence of capitalism.

[–] joostjakob@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Not to mention how all megafauna got extinct wherever modern humans showed up

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by

  1. the farming of animal products,
  2. the production and consumption of energy, and
  3. 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.

EDIT: the reply below completely ignores my question. Very few people seem to actually give a shit about the environment. It’s all just ideological posturing. And that is why we are fucked.

[–] onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Voluptas sed aut ut porro eius dolor. Nobis optio eaque architecto. Possimus illum itaque harum nulla doloribus. Beatae fuga labore quo.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 100 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory abattoirs. 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 the environment) unfortunately has nothing to do with our economic system.

  • Every 3 calories of beef require at least 100 calories of legumes.
  • Worse still, the average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots.
  • Add the methane and the nitrogenous runoff, and you have an ecological catastrophe.
  • If we ended animal agriculture, 75% of all farmland could be rewilded tomorrow.
[–] DeadPand@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but that’s woefully inadequate. We need between 2 and 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

  1. veganism
  2. 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.