/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"I ain’t driving twenty minutes to riot"

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion. Join our matrix! https://matrix.to/#/+leftychat:matrix.org

(37.17 KB 600x600 towel.jpg)
Anonymous 07/29/2020 (Wed) 13:33:29 No. 729481
Redpill me on climate change. How bad is it really? Does anyone even know?
It’s bad enough that if socialism cannot stop it it will destroy civilization Bad enough that it will almost certainly be beyond capitalism’s capacity to handle as capitalism is already starting to collapse from internal issues even without the brutal externality it has created. The redpill is to see that Climate Stalin and the Green Five Year Plan is the only way and that because it is the only way to survive some societies will choose this route just for survival and socialism will finally flourish. The dialectics are in motion, the international riots/protests were not at all a random incident.
It’s already too late. Not even being a doomer. Socialism won’t save us either, only provide a more comfortable heat death.
>>729491 >>729496 Sources pls.
>>729481 It is really bad ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome’: top climate scientists >The world’s most eminent climate scientists and biologists believe we’re headed for the collapse of civilisation, and it may already be too late to change course. https://voiceofaction.org/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/
>>729532 FUCK you, nagging redditor! You don’t even deserve a source you fucking nagging liar fucking lying nagger trying to manipulaye me here are your fucking sources your fucking sources https://youtu.be/lepMdZuZiHo https://youtu.be/b8hnAB43O4g https://youtu.be/HbjZlKqDCMA ALSO READ SOCIALISM OR EXTINCTION BY TED REESE NOW FUCK OFF
>>729564 Capitalist realism they are scientific porkies
>>729481 It is a spook designed by Malthusians.
>>729481 We're pretty fucked tbh
>How (and why) Silicon Valley is killing the planet https://youtu.be/OZL52FuXYvA >Climate Change and Neoliberalism https://youtu.be/BDBdzUz_lnE >The New UN Climate Report: We're Screwed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHdcpxmJ6vg
(41.53 KB 201x200 1591404974021-b.gif)
>>729585 Fuckin hell, I was just listening to some ML channel on youtube talking shit about Malthus about an hour ago. Sorry for shitposting, but also, climate change is legit and very problematic to put it lightly.
Going by studies it's consistently worse than predicted. In addition we have to deal with soil depletion and biodiversity loss. At this point we're looking at surviving the environmental crisis, the chance to prevent it past decades ago, likely before the majority of this board was born.
>>729491 Completely agree, when I hear radlibs and liberals in general moaning about how Bernie's and AOC's new green deal is the solution to slow global warming and those Elon Musk Technotards cumming on their Tesla's how electrical cars and "the Next big Invention from Silicon Valley" will revolutionize and stop global warming, I wish I had their smooth brain and naivete. Ignorance is fucking bliss,.. The only way we can minimize CC's impact is by a brutal Climate Stalin, who will make the actual Stalin look like a fucking anarchist. >Massive investment in public sectors >Instant Capital Freeze to prevent capital flight >Literal Gulags and shooting squads for any petite Bourg or Bourgeoise or anyone who is working against reducing Greenhouse gasses <Actual liquidation of the richest 10%, they are literally responsible for 50% of the greenhouse gasses, if we don't just wipe them off the earth they will do anything to keep hold of their power and capital, they are not reformable >Nationalization of houses of people who own more than one, to give to the homeless, Resist? Gulag >Nationalization of Amazon and other delivery services >Ban owning a car, doesn't matter if it is electrical >Stop growth in the West, for at least 10 years, Massive investments in the global south, let them industrialize
(198.98 KB 800x791 e82.jpg)
>>729613 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ THANK YOU BABY BOOMERS. THANK YOU U.S.A. THANK YOU CAPITALISM. THANK YOU GOD.
its probably exaggerated but the environmental issues like plastic in the ocean making babies trans and lowering spern counts is serious enough on its own
Leftypol is convinced the climate is doomed and any discerning opinion will be accused of being a glowie
>>729613 I solution I see is global communism tbh. And it needs to come fast.
>>729634 I'm old enough to remember the hoax of global cooling and the ozone depletion, so I don't believe the doomsayers at all. We make fun of people of the past for having world ending hysteria when they saw a comet, but we do the same behaviors today except its "science" so its good.
>>729647 Maybe you live in a place where it's not apparent. We see consequences of it here now.
>>729647 >I'm old enough to remember the hoax of global cooling and the ozone depletion, so I don't believe the doomsayers at all. So when climatology was still essentially in its infancy. Got it.
>>729630 Yup. >>729635 The abolition of capitalism is necessary to stop climate change, but it's not sufficient. At a minimum we're going to need a 40% reduction in energy production and getting rid of state functions such as police, prisons, military is likely going to be a part of that given how throughput intensive such activities are.
I'm a principled marxist but I have to say WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Yes that is the principled marxist approach who wants to win over the masses. Tell them of mass death.
>>729647 Ozone depletion was a real thing that was stopped because the world got its shit together and banned the chemicals that were causing it be depleted. It wasn't a hoax, it was an incidence of people actually listening to the scientists and stopping it so that morons like you now go "well nothing happened so it was a hoax"
>>729660 I SAID CLIMATE STALIN, BITCH, WERE YOU NOT LISTENING!?!?
It's a spook
>>729481 Bourgeois eco-fascist conspiracy theory
Its a literal spook. People want so much to believe in Armageddon. If it where really gonna end all civilisation, dont you think people more generally would be more concerned about it?
>>729660 Oh wow the only solution to Armageddon is your anarchist version of communism, this is such spook shit.
(63.57 KB 800x600 head.jpg)
>>729590 >Quoting the UN and a liberal youtuber quoting the UN WE ARE REACHING LEVELS OF SPOOK THAT SHOULD NOT EVEN BE POSSIBLE
>>730570 You realize that the majority of those in power will die before the mass deaths happen right? So they don't give a fuck.
>>730570 No? Porky doesn’t think he’ll die and owns the media If it wasn’t a problem fossil fuel porky wouldn’t spend billions of dollars to convince retards that pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every single year for 200 straight years while simultaneously pumping methane, discarding plastic, and cutting down every last forest will have no negative repercussions for the biosphere or society. I’m surprised that communists fall for oil porky’s propaganda, but then again this is leftypol and while disappointed I really shouldn’t be shocked
>>729647 >ozone depletion You mean the one where they signed global multilateral protocols to ban substances that were found to particularly damage the ozone layer, one of the biggest examples of international cooperation towards fighting an ecological threat to date, one that showed that we really could alter the course of climate change if we worked at it? Do you also think the damage of tetraethyl lead was a hoax because we aren't all dead from lead poisoning?
>>730603 >>730609 1. What about 20 year old porkies 2. People care about their offspring 3. There are no major or serious politcal movements against climate change If you really believe that climate change will destroy all human civilisation. Why are you and no one else doing anything about it? The Apocalypse is coming and you are doing jackshit. This makes you either a coward or a monstrously selfish individual. Why are you even on leftypol, if the worlds ending all you should be doing is trying to prevent that.
>>730630 >1. What about 20 year old porkies Bunkers >2. People care about their offspring Not as you would think And again Bunkers >3. There are no major or serious politcal movements against climate change There is also no ongoing worker’s movement and socialism is the only thing capable of dealing with the problem <Porky hasn’t moved to save us! Isn’t proof that climate change isn’t real And there is a political movement, it was just spearheaded mostly by the youth and quickly coopted by NGOs > If you really believe that climate change will destroy all human civilisation. Why are you and no one else doing anything about it? I truly believe Capitalism will destroy mankind via nuclear war if not climate change I am but one man however
>>730609 >>730630 Porky cannot solve the problem even if he wanted. The problem is the capitalist system, not individual porkies, having "good" porkies in power will not solve the issue at hand. Solving climate change requires a slow down of production and a rationalization of the economy that is something that porky just cannot afford. Even if one wanted another porky would come along and eat them. The one thing porky truly fears are other porkies.
>>730639 So you are telling me people are going against all self interest so they can live in bunkers. SEEMS EXTREMELY FAR FETCHED. >And there is a political movement, it was just spearheaded mostly by the youth and quickly coopted by NGOs Yes because climate change is literally an NGO Spook. If Porky was so afraid of climate change as a narrative, why is in all school curriculum and regularly featured on the news?
>>730651 >slow down of production Ah here comes the malthuse memes GOTTEM. How you gonna feed all the people, this is literally genocide.
(191.56 KB 625x682 cc4.png)
>>730743 >guys socialism will magically solve climate change.
>>730736 >So you are telling me people are going against all self interest so they can live in bunkers Going against their self-interest would be going bankrupt to solve a problem the capitalist class as a whole doesn’t care to solve > If Porky was so afraid of climate change as a narrative, why is in all school curriculum and regularly featured on the news? Capitalists don’t fear climate change And those that acknowledge it exists simply choose to do nothing You and I don’t have millions or billions of dollars so it will immediately and clearly affect us, and it will affect people in the colonized world even worse Porky is about as many degrees of difference from the threat of global warming you need to be to intellectually insulate yourself from the problem
>>730747 Socialism will solve climate change but productivists are also retards I don’t even know what “rational planning” means to these people
(52.85 KB 1068x601 gigachad.jpg)
>>730747 Socialism won't have to solve climate change because it isn't real.
>>730749 that was addressed to productivists who think current levels of production are remotely sustainable
>>730748 Ah yes people love to kill off their grandchildren. Not buying it bozo
(11.83 KB 225x225 cockandballtorture.jpg)
>>730762 >Ah yes people love to kill off their grandchildren I certainly do
>>730762 No people mostly don’t give an actual fuck about them and their grandkids mostly don’t inform their actual political views This isn’t so hard to understand And you’re making the mistake of viewing capitalism as down to the individual whims of capitalists rather than the collective actions of a capitalist class in constant competition with each other You fundamentally believe in the idea that there actually could be a bourgeois ubermensch that solves the issue using their vast resources when the most likely outcome of the attempt would be to get undercut by the competition or ousted by shareholders pissed that your making them way less money with genuinely ecologically sustainable practices The capitalist class didn’t actually want two world wars and yet they happened regardless It is market competition that created the ecological crisis, meaning it isn’t a problem the capitalist class can actually overcome
>>730630 >If you really believe that climate change will destroy all human civilisation. Why are you and no one else doing anything about it? What are you talking about? Capitalism is going about as far as it actually can while remaining within its own framework to "do something" about it - the issue is that the framework is deeply flawed. Is capitalism not a problem because there isn't already a massive international movement against it? This sort of issue doesn't just magically generate momentum all on its own, there are people who have to get into movements, and there are people who have reasons to discredit and fight those movements. Are you asking why people haven't liquidated oil bourgs in a mass spontaneous movement?
>>730743 we are already producing more than enough food to feed all of the planet if resources were distributed fairly. We stop waisting resource in useless shit and by allocating resources inefficiently thanks to a planned economy and we trasition our energy sources to a more sustainable ones and slowly kick our production back up, I don't see what's malthusian about this.
>>730780 He’ll probably ree about nature being fascist and people here wanting to lower birth rates even tho nobody said that
>>730777 No I believe that 1. Capital accumulation is out of self interest 2.A foundational interest is welfare of progeny
>>730783 No I un-ironically want to double the worlds population by 2100
>>730780 There would not be enough food for a healthy diet at current levels of production, further an increasing population will require increasing levels of production to provide food for the entire population.
>>730779 No, people can continue to live under capatilism. But if ahmegedon is coming in under 100 years, anyone aware should use all their energy to try and stop it. If Armageddon is coming you personally cannot morally justify doing anything else but trying to stop it.
>>730784 >1. Capital accumulation is out of self interest And do you know how the mechanism actually works? There’s a reason I mentioned capitalists competing with each other and CEOs getting ousted if they stop making the firm money. This is self-interest in a very specific way, self-interest specifically in the form of capital accumulation which runs according to cutting production costs to stay competitive and not whatever thing capitalists want to happen. > 2.A foundational interest is welfare of progeny Who only matter in terms of inheritance as far as capital is concerned
>>730797 the estimates that I know of say that we are producing enough food for 11 billion people right now, and that seeing the current trends in demographic growth the planet will likely never surpass the 13 billions people, so I have few doubts that we'll be able too feed all of peolpe of Earth for the forseeable future with a bit of razionalization, considering how many resources we are currently wasting thanks to the inefficiencies of the anarchic free market.
>>730801 You can’t stop it without having a mass uprising against capitalism so the question comes back to why there is no mass uprising against capitalism. Believe it or not but possibly dying in 20 to 40 years is a bit different than getting gunned down trying to blow up an oil refinery next week and the latter is about as effective at stopping climate change as the former so I see why other people in the know don’t just up and charge a bunch of cops with an assault rifle.
(77.69 KB 640x448 2fig1.jpg)
>>729481 the revolution can't come fast enough
>>730801 Sure, but this cuts into oil profits in the next quarter, and that is more important to capital accumulation than what happens 100 years from now. Capitalism is not a rational, efficient system. There is a reason that the ozone layer depletion was enforced through government intervention and not the private market. It's entirely possible that the government could intervene and slow down climate change, but that flies in the face of the neoliberal regime which axiomatically enforces the claim that the government is not allowed to intervene.
(12.14 MB 800x450 2020-07-29.gif)
(204.52 KB 1280x720 jaxa-amsr2-volume.png)
(277.94 KB 1461x1740 N_daily_concentration_hires(1).png)
Don't look at the arctic, unless you want to become a doomer. Blue Ocean Event is now nearly certain to happen in the 2020's (The currently accepted models by the IPCC didn't anticipate it before 2070). I wonder what will happen to the methane trapped in the Easter Siberian Shelf... (https://youtu.be/kx1Jxk6kjbQ?t=217). If there isn't a revolution in a important economic power in the next decade then the situation will really dire for human civilization.
Climate Stalin
It's already too late. We're extremely fucked.
>>731902 Climate Stalin
>>729481 Nobody really knows, but what ever it is will continue to be made worse because its too profitable to just keep going how we are than to try and change society. Why is this? It is because society can not be changed directly, only a change in conditions can change society. There is a huge gap between 'this will upturn our daily lives' and 'this will collapse civilization'. The space in between is when progress can occur.
Climate doomerism is an ideological offensive that the left picked up because it was desperate and none of its ideas could maintain appeal. It was especially prevalent among young and incredulous middle and upper class people, who have Malthusianism drilled into their heads very aggressively. If you have to say that the world is doomed unless you accept a very narrow ideology and endlessly hector people into submission, you don't have a really good ideology I think. Climate change is real but the doomsday models are a bunch of malarkey and those who actually study the natural sciences will tell you the doomer models are deliberate fabrications. There is also, likely, little that can be done about it. Hilariously, the thing that could do something major, massive investment in nuclear power, is fought with such ferocity that it's obvious the Greens will accept nothing but the Malthusian solution. A whole lot of this, though, could be resolved by producing a lot less plastic shit that we didn't really need and didn't really ask for, that a lot of us can't even afford to buy. The issue of carbon emissions will be resolved more by economics than anything else. There won't be a market for consumerism, or a need to continue it much longer. America is going down, and that seems to be the goal of a lot of these people. Us Burgers will be a nation of paupers, sucked dry and the capitalists will fuck off to their fortified compounds or move elsewhere in the world to repeat the process. All of this discussion of reducing consumption should be quaint talk 20 years from now, but then the purpose of this narrative will have been accomplished; the imperial core's population will be broken of their benefits, Africans will remain undeveloped and dependent, and Asia will be dominated by eugenism as the new stronghold for their ideology.
>>731923 Climate models aren't based on ideology though. And I'd argue that if there were any ideological effect on research, it'd be in favor of climate denialism. There's just too much evidence. Hell, I've seen the way seasons changed where I live. We don't even have fall or spring anymore. Just a cold storm season and a hot storm season.
>>730910 >Blue Ocean Event is now nearly certain to happen in the 2020's I heard it may even happen this year.
>>731933 that's anecdotal though. Things change over the span of human lives, and they have cycles as well. History is full of particularly mild or particularly harsh seasons. The overall trend seems to be one things getting more crazy and peculiar, but is this confirmation bias? Its hard to say. What we can say is data and models but climate models have a bad track record. We do not know all the mechanisms of things that can happen. Making bad predictions tends to just build the case against you. Ive always preferred when it comes to the environment a more generalized argument for lessening our overall environmental impact. This is a good approach because it tends to be accepted more by 'conservative' types who will automatically reject new assertions or calls for change, but will agree when you frame it as the 'change' is actually what we are doing now with all our industry and activities, and we need to stop changing things so hastily. Reversing the message is enough to gain wide appeal. Its probably too late for that now.
>>731938 I have been following the Arctic quite closely this year and while we are currently at a record low in extent, area and volume and might end up being the worst year in recorded history, it will still take an extraordinary weather event to achieve a BOE (that is a sea ice extent of less than 1000000km²). At worst, we finish at 2500000km².
>>731933 There is ample evidence of models being pushed that fudge data so aggressively that they are clearly designed to come to a predetermined conclusion. Stuff like a million different feedback loops that are only supposed, and the total lack of countervailing factors that would lead to global cooling.
>>730651 It doesn't help that like half of them have interests in the energy industry
>>731923 Mein gott. Nobody's saying everybody currently on earth is gonna go extinct faggot. See you 2040s though, when people here would be advocating climate refugee genocide.
>>731951 >ample evidence Post it then
>>731923 > the imperial core's population will be broken of their benefits It's funny when all that rambling comes down to your actual fear.
>>731945 Only on Leftypol will I see communists argue that climate change does not exist because there was once a bad snow storm when they were a kid You mentioned “knowing anything“ about natural sciences, but I struggle to believe you do if you can’t even hypothetically conceive of the likely outcome of pumping tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere every single year for two hundred years while also hunting many species to extinction, filling every inch of the planet with plastic, cutting down all the forests, and consuming all the arable soil. I know the world seems magical in the Bible but it isn’t realistic. The world isn’t infinite even though Capital says it is. The planet has had five mass extinctions, four of whom having similar chemical circumstances; believe me if bacteria farting for a billion years can cause a mass extinction an entire civilization based on an exponential growth formula exhausting every resource simultaneously while also pumping pollutants into the atmosphere at a much greater rate certainly can as well. Just admit it, you think were climate change real it would be unstoppable. You’re afraid and in denial.
>>732017 Whatever that retard forum poster has to say about the ecological crisis is certainly worthless Why didn’t you link an actual writer or something? You realize Marxist ecologists exist?
>>732022 good for them. I’m anti-ecology though.
>>732024 Of course you are, a based forum poster convinced you that there is no crisis because there wasn’t one mentioned by Marx in the 1870s when he was writing; when paleontology was still a new field of study, there wasn’t yet any major studies of the Earth itself, and the Industrial Revolution hadn’t been going on long enough to make a measurable effect on Earth’s climate. If somebody eloquently argued to you that biology is bullshit and evolution is a lie you’re still a moron for believing them no matter how silver their tongue is.
>>732026 the fact that the ecosystems has had massive extinction crises without our existence, let alone with us, is why we should be against itz
>>729567 >SOCIALISM OR EXTINCTION BY TED REESE Can I get a pdf? couldn't find it on libgen
>>732032 No the fact that it’s happened before and has always wiped out the dominant species of life who sat upon a fragile food web that was destroyed is the exact reason we must prevent it you fucking moron At least the dinosaurs weren’t smart enough to have forewarning, if we now got communists saying “but porky doesn’t care so it isn’t real” then maybe we deserve to go extinct.
>>732053 protect what? we don’t rely on nature for our food, we have farms. you mean the atmosphere? like it’s been said before, it’s already to too late. our best hope is geoengineering. anti-ecology. additionally the only way the experimentation for that kind of thing would be possible is under the global cooperation that requires communism.
>>729647 >I'm old enough to remember the hoax of global cooling and the ozone depletion and yet, still reasoning like a child, you remain incapable of forming a proper argument supporting your position
>>729481 WERE FUCKED LAD enjoy watching te world burn.
>>729625 >believing in capital flight ayee
>>732056 >protect what? we don’t rely on nature for our food, we have farms You’re a simple bastard, aren’t you? We rely on the soil to grow our food, we rely on forests to keep nearby climates stable enough for growing to be possible, we require the global forest network and a stable climate for agriculture generally, we also rely on the phytoplankton in the seas for the air we breathe and beyond that there actually is a surface temperature limit at which point going outside is incredibly dangerous for humans, and of course this ties into the issue of water loss. It’s wild that some literally who on a defunct website is your sole go to source to debunk almost the entirety of scientists (particularly almost all that study any Earth science field), all Marxist ecologists, and most communists generally. Look as someone that started using leftypol right before 8chan went defunct, I gotta know, was it always this dumb? Were people claiming to be well-read and then citing forum users back in 2017?
>>732073 >You’re a simple bastard, aren’t you? We rely on the soil to grow our food, we rely on forests to keep nearby climates stable enough for growing to be possible, we require the global forest network and a stable climate for agriculture generally, we also rely on the phytoplankton in the seas for the air we breathe and beyond that there actually is a surface temperature limit at which point going outside is incredibly dangerous for humans, and of course this ties into the issue of water loss. don’t you see this as a problem? why should we rely on a system that has resulted in so many extinctions in the past? why can’t we overcome the imbalances in it that threaten us with engineering and science? explain why not.
(8.94 KB 296x170 tedmeme.png)
>>730609 yankees are dumb. theey believe dumb shit anon. leftypolers are prone to believing dumb shit because of contrarianism and autism. >>732056 are you posting from a care home, anon?
>>729625 ><Actual liquidation of the richest 10%, they are literally responsible for 50% of the greenhouse gasses, if we don't just wipe them off the earth they will do anything to keep hold of their power and capital, they are not reformable they're responsible in the sense that they own and reap the rewards from the industries that produce the greenhouse gasses, but not in the sense that you can merely guillotine them and consequently the production of greenhouse gases will decline by 50%. unless, of course, you're considering the richest 10% of the world at large, in which case it absolutely will (and by virtue of your internet access, you are likely included in this category). if you're considering the richest 10% of the western countries, you will be sorely disappointed.
(121.00 KB 660x1000 1585082481541-b.jpg)
>>731951 >>731945 I doubt I'll change anyone's mind, but I encourage you to think critically. Who benefits from pushing climate change? What profits would be made for this myth and how much influencing power would those who could benefit have? And who benefits from denial? What profits can be made from denying climate change and how much influencing power do those who it would benefit (porkies) have?
>>729647 Fuck you bitch, ozone layer is clearing up. I can even describe to you how ozone formation and depletion works.
>>730784 Why are you under this delusion that porkies are any more free for proles?
It's pretty bad, at least in my experience. I have seen it very clearly in the past 10 years. t. Currently posting in the middle of a trop. storm.
>>732078 >why should we rely on a system that has resulted in so many extinctions in the past? why can’t we overcome the imbalances in it that threaten us with engineering and science? Because we don't know what the fuck we are doing and we won't for a very long time. Not without this system where we learn so much from. If only you anti-climate people know how little humanity as a whole knows about the shit around it to manipulate it without killing ourselves. The best innovations and design always come from shit already in nature.
>>732133 >Who benefits from pushing climate change? You mean understanding it? >What profits would be made for this myth and how much influencing power would those who could benefit have? Almost nothing compared to fossil fuel firms and really almost all firms >And who benefits from denial? Capitalists >What profits can be made from denying climate change Based on Exxon Mobile’s actions about forty years’ worth >and how much influencing power do those who it would benefit (porkies) have? All of it
(131.32 KB 1396x936 oxfam.jpg)
>>732084 >they're responsible in the sense that they own and reap the rewards from the industries that produce the greenhouse gasses They have a ridiculously high consumption level of greenhouse gasses, See pic and: <Who are the richest 10%? The figure is not about nations but people – the 770m or so people who make up the richest tenth of the world’s population. The disparity is even more startling when we look at the differences between the ultra-rich and the bottom 50% at a global level, where a typical ultra-rich individual produces 35 times the carbon emissions of someone in the bottom half, and 175 times the amount of someone in the poorest 10%. This cohort of ultra-consumers are not spread evenly around the globe. Some 40% live in the US, around 20% live in the EU and 10% in China. <Focusing on the richest 10% is a useful way of looking at things as carbon emissions aren’t only globally uneven, they are also uneven within national borders. <The key detail here is the massive disparity in most wealthy countries between the emissions of rich and poor households. In both the US and the UK, the richest 10% produce at least five times the emissions of the poorest 50%. And this is just their consumption emissions (and doesn’t include those emissions produced by the people who work for them – their cleaners, drivers, and so on – which would further expand their impacts). https://theconversation.com/emissions-inequality-there-is-a-gulf-between-global-rich-and-poor-113804 <If the richest 10th of the planet reduced consumption to the average EU level, it’d cut global emissions by 30% https://www.citymetric.com/horizons/if-richest-10th-planet-reduced-consumption-average-eu-level-it-d-cut-global-emissions-30 >you're considering the richest 10% of the world at large, in which case it absolutely will (and by virtue of your internet access, you are likely included in this category). 60% of the global population has access to the internet
>>732133 >Who benefits from acknowledging and understanding it? Those who suffer the most from the effects of climate change: The international proletariat, especially those living in the global south and receiving the biggest punches from global warming. >Who benefits from denial? Those most responsible for climate change (the richest 10% are responsible for 50% of greenhouse gasses) and those whose lifestyle and their existence depends on emitting lots of greenhouse gasses and ignoring the long term consequences. Sounds an awful lot like the capitalist mode of production's existence depends on ignoring CC, since it is incompatible with sustainability and ecology and requires infinite growth, don't you think?
>>732133 Ignoring climate change and actively denying or even minimizing it's causes and consequences is akin to approving of literal genocide of the global south. The world is bigger than only the first world. Just because you don't see shit like "climate change happening down the street" doesn't mean it is not happening. Capitalism is incompatible with ecological sustainability, stop believing in fringe far-right conspiracy theories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOEG3M7dlDo
>>731939 How people can look at shit like this and still be a denier is beyond me.
>>731984 The refugees will be from wars that are instigated to keep the world poor, not from "the climate". That is entirely what it has been so far, because the World Bank and so on fuck with Africa and the Middle East was turned into a giant battlefield by Bush. I saw the same chucklefucks claim that the entire Syrian refugee situation was because of muh climate, rather than the geopolitical reality in the Middle East. It's fucking disgusting what these cretins do to justify their shitty world order.
>>732353 >Liberals paying off scientists
(759.78 KB 1547x477 Capture.PNG)
So here's my understanding of it, someone please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this here, but from what I know we're mega fucked. According to climate scientists (Jem Bendell), a 3 degree celsius average increase by 2050 is basically inevitable, and if we're really unlucky it'll be a 5 degree increase. A 3 degree increase alone is gonna be hell though, the rising temperatures will hit areas of the world around the equator hardest, making it almost impossible to reliably grow crops in most of Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, and South Asia. There's gonna be mass migrations from these area to the developed world the likes of which will make the 2015 migrant crisis look like nothing. Many of the affected countries could even end up fighting each other for control of essential resources such as water, which could threaten all of humanity if it's a war between nuclear armed countries like India and Pakistan. Meanwhile in the developed world things are also gonna be going to shit. Huge projects are gonna be necessary in order to alleviate the impact of climate change (sea walls to protect cities from rising sea levels, expensive green house farms to produce crops that can no longer be field farmed, water purification plants needed with the decrease in fresh water). Many developed countries will likely become increasingly authoritarian in response to the threat of mass migration, social instability, and the new diplomatic threats caused by resource shortages. Also, life is gonna be complete shit for the average prole in the developed world like most of us. The increased carbon in the atmosphere will make the air less breathable, meaning you're gonna be panting after just casually walking outside for 10 minutes. There's gonna be a huge increase in insect populations like mosquitoes which will make tropical diseases much more prevalent than before. Also, foods that are considered common now such as fresh veg and meat will become very difficult to cheaply mass produce by then, meaning most people will have to survive on a diet of not very nutritious foods that can be cheaply produced in the new climate (probably lots of insects and potatoes). At the moment we're going through a period where politicians and academics are trying to implement ways to alleviate the crisis in the context of the current Late Capitalist system (Paris Agreement, Green New Deal, Carbon Tax), but as these measures eventually fail the consensus will shift to acknowledging that they can't stop the increasing temperatures and there will be a new political movement to focus on preparing countries for the eventual climate catastrophe (likely to protect Capitalist interests more than the livelihood of Proles). tl;dr: We're heading straight for hell world.
It's a concern, the health of the environment is always a concern, but much of the hysteria is politically motivated, and it has been marketed to impressionable women as a fashionable, fart-huffing cause du jour. Climatism has taken hold like a Beatle mania for the modern age, complete with the squealing, crying, and fainting of earlier times (emotionally charged women are the last thing you want anywhere near the political process, but that's a topic for another day). The consensus exists primarily because "the science is settled" and unfashionable heretics are chased out of the academy. Moreover, much of the supporting science is based upon poor quality, overfitted statistical models and gross overstatement of their predictive value. I'd say the best predictor of the worth of these claims is that climate alarmists have been predicting the end of the world every decade since the 1960's, when computer modeling first became available. We're all still here though. Verdict: 1. keep an eye on it; 2. repeal universal suffrage.
>>732396 >making it almost impossible to reliably grow crops Not even remotely true, agriculture will produce smaller yields but you can grow things in a pretty wide range of temperatures. The greater difficulty is drought and the difficulty of irrigation without some massive desalination plants. >sea walls to protect cities from rising sea levels Oh noes, sea levels rise a few meters. You act like it's the fucking biblical flood. > expensive green house farms to produce crops that can no longer be field farmed Not true and do you know how fucking hot a greenhouse gets? >decrease in fresh water Is largely dependent on aquifiers draining, We're not in medieval Europe where agriculture is entirely rainfall-dependent, and again, you are talking about a decrease in precipitation (which is why crop yields drop). > increasingly authoritarian in response to the threat of mass migration, social instability What comes first, the Malthusian crisis or the social instability? We live in an unstable world because of an unstable economic and political system, because there are actors in the world who sow chaos and death. See: Iraq War and the Middle East turning into a war zone because Dick Cheney wanted to be as evil as humanly possible. Climate change has not in recent history produced any drastic outcomes; the causes of growing instability are all about the political and the economic system. >The increased carbon in the atmosphere will make the air less breathable Carbon emissions, as much as they exist, constitute a vanishingly small part of the content of the air we breathe. There is no expected decrease in the oxygen content of the air, certainly not a drastic one. Smog emissions from the local factory are a far greater effect on local air quality than overall carbon content in the air. There's so much disinfo and scare tactics in these scenarios. I can give you some credit, maybe you're new to this, but the concern over climate change (so far as it is a real concern) has to do with agricultural profitability, rather than existential threats. It's just sad to see leftypol using right-wing argumentation tactics to say climate change is real, rather than the factual temperature data and models (which do indicate a rise in temperatures, but the total rise from 1950 to now is less than a degree C). >>732409 It's not like we were ever allowed to actually vote on any of this. So far as people have a right to vote, they overwhelmingly vote against climate doomerism, because it's such an obviously elite-centered agenda. The few times Green parties are given any significant electoral power, they show their true colors and ruthlessly attack the lower classes, as they did in Germany. For what it's worth, the actual consensus does not acknowledge the "doomer" models, but there is so much screeching from the ecologists that it's hard to know that if you're an impressionable youth or just rely on publications to give you accurate information. This story of imminent collapse is an old one, going all the way back to Malthus, and it will always find its partisans. If a university wants to protect its reputation, it doesn't sell the doomer model, even in this political climate. That's why it has to be promoted by the Club of Rome (literally some of the Porkiest aristocrats you can find) and is popular among the Davos crowd more than it is among academics even. One way it seems academic, though, is that one of the criteria for promoting in the academy is an incredulous belief in whatever dogma is fashionable, if you yourself are not an expert in the field. This doesn't always hold, but it does sink its teeth into a lot of young people who do not have reasonable ability to compare to any other source or their evidence. I know we were told in middle school science class one day to write an imagined news article about global warming, where the result was that you were expected to declare that it was true or you get a non-passing grade. It's basically a "when did you stop beating your wife" exercise.
>>732150 under your own ideas of the laws of nature, we’re all doomed then
>>732475 >doomed The fuck does that mean? Do you think I am a doomer? Are you rejecting shit because it makes you feel bad? Fuck off pussy. I am not even denying the claim that Humanity can harness the power of nature, just that is a fucking pipe dream in the next 150 years at least. We cause problems even without intending to do anything, how can we even understand let alone overcome Nature?
(104.00 KB 600x600 alunya_thumbs_up.png)
>>732278 >>732338 >>732343 These are all correct responses. This is the series of questions I tell anyone to ask themselves about a conspiracy theory. A simpler version is to just ask someone, "How does this affect rich people?" The idea is to engage serious thought and, hopefully, get people to figure out the truth on their own. Because nobody changes their stance mid argument, but maybe a climate denier who asks themselves these questions will mull them over after we're done talking.
Wh*Tes created it but our brethrens in Africa have to bear the consequences. But fear not brethren, we, the Türkish bvlls, true successor of Roma, will reconquer the E*rope to save you. Prepare your asses gayreeks. We are coming.
>>732533 >how can we even understand let alone overcome Nature? the same way we’ve done it in the past. through experimentation and trial and error. the problem is we don’t have the international political resources to do it. >Are you rejecting shit because it makes you feel bad? what the fuck does THAT mean? all I’m saying is that even if all industrial greenhouse gasses in the whole world stopped being emitted tomorrow we would still face the threat of extinction. that’s a fact. which is why being pro-ecology is not enough. you have to be against it. and assert that such a thing is only possible under global communism. otherwise you’ll end up like >>729496
>>732792 >the same way we’ve done it in the past. through experimentation and trial and error. Not if we recklessly destroy shit around us at the pace we are going! >even if all industrial greenhouse gasses in the whole world stopped being emitted tomorrow we would still face the threat of extinction. that’s a fact. Oh boo fucking hoo, of fucking course we face extinction every time. Every single wave of extinction has been random shit happening to Nature. What makes our situation so fucking retarded and comical is that we are doing it to ourselves. Dinosaurs and sea creatures didn't shit and eat their way to extinction, but we will very soon or at least civilization will As far as I am concerned, pro-ecology is pro-humanity because shit has been going downhill for the habitable conditions here since we went 'anti-ecology', whatever the fuck that means. >otherwise you’ll end up like >>729496 Oh so you are a fucking pussy then?
(77.99 KB 1124x628 destroyingciv.jpg)
Global warming will happen no matter what we do by now, all the consequences that have already been said on this thread will happen, doesn't matter if Green Stalin come and dominates the world today. The world is basically in a state of constant collapse on the techno-industrial system, the system has two options right now: 1. It will collapse by itself 2. Climate change and other environmental factors will do the collapse for it Theoretically if the system survives, which, now, is such an improbable outcome, I can't even imagine all the human suffering, psychologically and physically that they will suffer. If we, as a specie still want to live on a somewhat livable planet, the best case scenario would be a man made collapse of the techno-industrial system, way less people will die if it is man made instead of we just sitting on our chairs and wait for it to happen by itself
(79.36 KB 1200x830 Iraq.jpg)
A little starter to what our future shall feel like
>>732923 =111 F, for Burgers
>>732923 >50 degrees It's inhumane.
>>732814 >As far as I am concerned, pro-ecology is pro-humanity because shit has been going downhill for the habitable conditions here since we went 'anti-ecology' correlation doesn’t not equal causation. we can find ways to dominate and control nature without fearing it and without resorting to the uncontrollable wastefulness of capitalism. and not only that, but we SHOULD. nature has no “natural harmony” that we’ve disturbed. there’s no harmony. there’s been mass extinctions in the past and there will continue to be more in the future unless we learn to control it. what’s wrong with saying it? tell me what’s wrong.
(10.73 KB 450x154 Screenshot_20200730_183300.png)
>>732923 Thank god for the low humidity or this wouldn't be a survivable temperature.
>>732814 >Oh so you are a fucking pussy then? explain
>>732364 actually chemtrail levels of retardation
>>732952 Quoting The Feral Underclass: > "Yeah we have this great idea, but unfortunately all this nice green stuff that you hang out in, that's all gotta go...Oh yeah, we're just gonna concrete over all of this...Don't worry though, we're gonna engineer you so that you can live in it without dying...Your cat? No, sorry that's gotta go too..." Just the thought of living in a society that they propose is beyond my view of what is a humane condition of living
>>732979 He’s being sarcastic and strawmanning Rafiq’s argument. nobody’s arguing that.
Decreasing production doesn't mean malthusianism unless your brain is completely rotted by the logic of neoliberal capitalism. You stupid fucks.
(202.28 KB 559x260 80musa.png)
(168.79 KB 555x382 80maussie.png)
(464.60 KB 801x494 80m russia.png)
Freshwater! Get yer freshwater here! Plenty of freshwater for the mad max dystopia!
(7.57 KB 852x555 plantbot.png)
>>732919 >muh techno industrial system is eating nature It's all just matter, it's not fundamentally 2 different things, the only reason we conceptualise nature and machines as different is because we can control what machines do. Your proclamation that machines have only a single setting where it eats nature, is basically contradicting the definition of machines as highly controllable and configurable matter-piles. It's also reactionary because you are shifting blame away from capitalism, and towards technology. There is some strange similarity with sections of the capitalist class that have also become somewhat technophobic. New technologies means change and for people at the top all change always seems dangerous because the way the world is now has them at the top and a world that's changed by technology is one where that might not be the case. The question is now where the technophobia comes from people who are not actually personally threatened by technology in off it self but rather by the capitalist implementation. One possible explanation for this error might be the false assumption about capitalism not being replaceable. Obviously socialist deployment of technology is a viable alternative, or maybe not just an alternative but a increasingly a much more plausible way to do things.
(60.80 KB 400x604 Marx's Ecology.jpg)
>>732919 STFU, anti-civ, anti-technology reactionary, being anti-technology is anti-marxist. We can't reduce the effects of climate change by "going back", that's just plain retarded. The material conditions are entirely different. The only way we minimize its effects is by employing more technology, you brainlet.
(1.46 MB 217x217 1365248405925.gif)
It's okay anons, we don't really need nature if you think about it, we can just grow our food on farms lol.
>>733130 >STFU, anti-civ, anti-technology reactionary, being anti-technology is anti-marxist. Yes.
>>732919 The state will still need to exist to keep our precious overlords fed.
>>733134 This but unironically. Aeroponics systems can reduce water usage by 98 percent, fertilizer usage by 60 percent, pesticide usage by 100 percent, AND speed up plant growth by up to 100%.
>>733144 >Aeroponics systems can reduce water usage by 98 percent, fertilizer usage by 60 percent, pesticide usage by 100 percent, AND speed up plant growth by up to 100%. Yeah, if you believe this is possible, you are *unironically* retarded. You are the prime example of man's alienation from nature and the 21st century Cartesian idealism (man vs nature dualism)
>>733177 Can't believe /leftypol/ is literally retarded. No wonder communists are piss poor
>>733144 a glorified flu heemed the economy do you really think it's robust enough to survive a global ecological collapse? lmao you fucking idiot.
>>733144 Stop watching Elon Musk and other Futurtarded CGI animations
>>730630 >1. What about 20 year old porkies >2. People care about their offspring Porkies are preparing their own Elysium. Not everything perishes even in a worst case scenario. I personally think that it's too late though. We should strive to build a workers' movement to diminish the human catastrophe that approaches, but fundamentally I think that the global south will fry itself while the north just watches, as always.
Technological development, societal change, and ecological development are intertwined. the issue is not that we don't have the resources to provide a good life for everyone. THe problem is that our society is not designed to maximize people's lives and societal benefit, it's all designed for profit. We make enough food to feed everyone, but we don't, because if we distributed it all properly it would cut into profit margins. We could make easily repaired or upgradeable utilities, but we don't, because it's more profitable to make people need to buy entire new units when something breaks. We could have mass entertainment, mass transit, mass cultural enrichment, mass engagement in the process of our lives, but we don't, because it's profitable for everyone to have their own TV, their own cars, their own HBO subscription and expensive tickets to highly paid actors and performers who are alienated from the rest of society and at the same time cut most people out of the production of their own society's culture. All of these things mean that we have to spend resources again and again just to line some rich porky's pockets somewhere. Developing technologies and societal changes to create a good society with efficiently spent resources, then ensuring everyone has access to this society's wealth is an entirely viable option that doesn't call on us to slash and burn the entire planet for the sake of trying to push out that one last sedan into someone's hands.
(112.90 KB 800x563 magnitogorsk12.jpg)
>muh suffer for the sins of humanity Climate change is malthusian bourgeois theology, and of course, a total lie and fabrication.
>>733223 >climate change literally telling us we have to change the way our society runs or we're going to die for it is bourgeois okay genuinely fuck off retard
>>733223 Based
>>733227 >climate change literally telling us we have to change the way our society runs or we're going to die for it is bourgeois If the """change""" is dictated by the Davos Forum, the Justice Democrats and the EU Commission absolutely YES
>>733235 Nobody said that you moron.
(102.29 KB 612x480 Petroleum_field_at_Moreni.jpg)
>>733238 No, you're just apeing their talking points while larping as a socialist. Fuck off, you windmill shill fairy
>>733235 Yeah dude the Koch brothers are comrades
>>733242 are your whole politics based on contrerianism? kek
>>733244 Look up Jewish Bolshevism.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
>>733242 I have pointed out time and again that socialist ecology implies repairing the psychological damage of alienation while also raising the living standards of everyone. You just don't want to admit that your brain is completely rotted out by individualist consumerism.
(843.19 KB 1600x1245 1593851014508.jpg)
>>733244 Reminder that many developing and socialist or left-leaning countries have their own Oil Industry, which globally is more democratic and less monopolistic than the """Green""" cartel
(418.32 KB 1000x1000 porky fat.png)
>>733235 Yeah bruh, the Davos forum definitely has ecological sustainability as its goal and they want to help those suffering in the global south.
>>733253 How does that stop CO2 from being a greehouse gas?
(25.56 KB 400x566 sandtimmer.png)
>>733216 >Porkies are preparing their own Elysium. No they're not, because it's not remotely possible with current technology, but even if it were, it could not be maintained with a tiny fraction of the population and economy that allowed for it to be build in the first place. Just ask your self how would this Elysium system replicate it's existence once the material conditions that gave rise to it disappeared. The best case scenario is going to be a temporary Elysium, that represents nothing but dead labour from the previous mass society. It will wear down and collapse later, with optimal scenarios ranging from one to three decades, but since it's going to be inhabited by former capitalists, whose behavioural patterns are shaped by seeking exploitable people, a reckless power struggle will ensue and the hole thing will disintegrate after a few years long before technical wear and tear runs out like a sandtimer.
>>733266 >No they're not, because it's not remotely possible with current technology They did not mean it literally anon, wtf. > a temporary Elysium, that represents nothing but dead labour from the previous mass society. It will wear down and collapse later moot point. objectively true for every society.
(43.65 KB 704x617 ERwRFaAWsAEc4Ec.jfif)
>>733266 >all the porkies escape to mars and end up killing each other within a decade
(898.50 KB 487x560 1520900190911.gif)
>>733269 >it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO2 levels cause warming. you need to go back
>>733269 global warming is fake?!
>>733275 >he didn't even bother to check the source article >the absolute state of AOCucks <The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation https://sci-hub.tw/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728
>>733253 Yes, and the development of fossil fuel usage and increasing industries is a reasonable thing to do for a society that is INDUSTRIALIZING. It makes sense, even from an socialist ecological sense for them to continue to do this. You're just straight up arguing from fucking idealism at this point.
>>732133 Like the others said, the people behind the science denying think tanks are the usual suspects: oil/car/plane/weapons companies, and thus the ruling political class which is after all the big bourgeoisie wanting to keep making profits and go toward preserving the status quo. But the bourgeoisie is not an homogeneous class, some porkies are farsighted, some are smart, and most are opportunistic. So since decades we see the occasional Al Gore and some fashion green concepts thrown around like "Sustainable development" which amounts to "how do we keep capitalism around the longest time possible". Now there is among the big boys porky club a "green" tendency forming because there are a few market openings right now: electric cars, windmills, solar panels, low consumption electronics etc. with all the big fat subsidies going with. In the future there will be many many more, partly with the commodification of all that is living which is promising, but the biggest market of all is the CO2 capture infrastructure. It's the holy grail, only States can finance it and only a few companies will build it and we're talking about hundreds of trillions of bucks here not pocket money, just look at how companies bid and lobby against each others for building shit like 5g antennas, now multiply this a thousand times. And that's why you see so many green porkies and why you will see more in the future, there is money to be made and the power is shifting.
>>733283 How does this disprove the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
>>733290 Stop being a brainlet, it literally shows the correlation to be in reverse, i.e. temperature increase makes CO2 levels rise, not the other way around. Also, stick to the narrative, nigga, everyone knows now that water vapor is the driving force behind muh """climate catastrophe""" rather than CO2
>>730630 >3. There are no major or serious politcal movements against climate change The bourgies are rallying behind Greta pretty hard fam.
>>733302 >muh correlation So it doesn't?
>>733304 the bourgeoisie are not a homogenous group, and some of them actually plan out trying to survive the next 40 years if they're under 80.
>>733302 >the correlation to be in reverse Not how correlation works and also correlation does not imply causation, this I'm sure of but what I can't understand is how a retard like you stumbled upon a 2003 geophysics article you don't have the capacities to understand while the abstract literally contradict what you're trying to say.
>>733335 >temperature rise happens before CO2 levels rise >b-but the latter causes the former Your brain on liberalism
>>733318 Right. What's your point?
(11.59 KB 212x238 images.jpg)
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST LIVE A PROSPEROUS LIFESTYLE AND EAT NOURISHING FOOD, YOU HAVE TO EAT BPA-LADEN GMO'S AND BUGS WHILE SLEEPING IN A POD AND WORKING 16H SHIFTS AT PORKY LLC https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02024-6
>>733343 Bruh is this your research paper demonstrating that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? It's incredible! Well done anon, you've outdone yourself!
>>733348 Nobody has said this, liberal.
>>729491 3 words. Controller Volcanic Detonations
>>733266 It's actually a fair point to argue whether it's technologically viable in the sense of whether they can automate labor to the point of not needing the proletarian masses to subsist, to which I posit that it's a more likely eventuality than a solution to climate change at least But leaving aside the question of its eventual collapse, which indeed is a bit asinine because it's obviously going to collapse at some point, I do think that the feasibility of a long-term Elysium matters less than porky believing that a long-term Elysium is feasible when talking about porky striving towards it as a viable escape from climate change. We forget that even porky is irrationally invested in the logic of capitalism, maybe even more than we the dumb masses are, so they may as well hold the preservation of capitalism as more valuable then their own self-preservation and/or believe that somehow capitalism can achieve an Elyisum and escape their own doom indefinitely. A bit similar to Davos bougies thinking they can leverage capitalism against itself and solve climate change, but like through a different route.
>>732542 based
(2.92 MB [email protected])
(149.19 KB 795x430 EeGizZwXoAA1VZk.png)
Hot of the press.
>>733467 >porky shills eternally BTFO
Climate change is the lesser evil option tbh
>>733483 >look at these computer modeled charts based on my preconceptions and purely descriptive data because we have no real experimental interventional models to study this >DENIERS REKT, CANCELLED 4LYFE
>>733505 Based post modernist
>>733509 >correlation =/= causation is postmodernism
>>733467 That is deeply disturbing.
>>733505 >well we've never had a world without an ozone layer maybe it's just stopping us from harnessing the sun's full potential, your phony models can't tell me to stop sniffing CFC's
>>733544 If you uighurs have all this bourgeois """SCIENCE!!!""" by your side, why do you need all these dog and pony sideshows, and these autistic child buddhas to enforce your shit propaganda on the world? Is it some grand illuminati blood ritual? Why use irrationalist means to promote something supposedly rational?
>>733363 Is that a serious question? They didn't need us ever since the Cold War was over. It's not a question of some new novel technology, but that this was their plan going back to the 1920s at the latest. They sure as hell aren't going to allow a single concession to us ever, ever again, and they would kill billions simply to ensure that doesn't happen. The ruling class does not even need capitalism. That's silly, foolish talk. The elites have the accumulation and wealth they need to sit on top for a long time. Their focus now is simply on beating down the masses, in accordance with the technology they have available. That's why America is turning into this insane Nazified crazytown. It's too late for us, but maybe the rest of the world can salvage something if they get their act together.
>>733556 >dear liberals, if climate change is real, why is producing greenhouse gases so profitable?
>>733556 tf is that pic
>>733556 what does it matter?
>>733562 nice deflection, radlib pizza fan
>>733467 Annnnd that's a new scientific paper coming out saying global warming is even worse than we thought. How original! Honestly at this point I'm just waiting for the blue ocean event and for the water coming down my house so I can go to the beach more easily.
>>733579 >I'm just waiting for the blue ocean event and for the water coming down my house so I can go to the beach more easily. So does Barack Obama https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate/barack-obama-marthas-vineyard-vacation-photos
>>733587 Cool, what's your point?
>>733556 Are these people socialists or liberals? Why do you conflate everyone who is concerned with the environment with liberals?
>>733590 He's so afraid of ocean levels rising he bought a beachfront property
>>733591 They're not socialists for sure
>>733592 No I still don't get it, can you elaborate?
>>733556 It's brainwashing. Seriously, the schools drill this shit so hard into our heads, supported by mass media; but it's more insidious than that. The screaming madness of the ecologists is unlike anything else, and they have so many educated intellectuals in on it either because the intellectuals are incredibly dishonest or because they are brainwashed just like the rest of us. I think I said it here; they literally have kids (poor kids, anyway) recite the global warming as undisputed fact and FORCE US to write articles proclaiming it to be true. It's like asking the kid "why is America the greatest country in the world?" or "why is the Soviet Union an evil commieland?", except much worse because no kid can be realistically expected to have climate data on hand or know the model, and because the ideology being promoted aggressively is far more evil than mere nationalism or even capitalism. They did this with eugenics back in the heyday too; biology classes literally became giant advertisements for eugenics and "every educated person believes in eugenics, don't be silly pleb". Watching Chumpsky breathlessly repeat the horror story lies of the Club of Rome was a real jarring thing to watch, and shows how far I came from where I was. I was never a fanatical believer, but like most Americans, I just accepted the models because I didn't know enough. It took some digging, though not much, to find just how utterly insane the ecologists have become. It's the most terrible thing that the left actually believes any of this is a recruitment tool for socialism. You can tell, too, who's serious about communism and who isn't by how much they boost this ecologist horseshit. Those who scream that the environment is why we need socialism are either hopelessly brainwashed or shills, but you could only ever take this fanatic stance if you are a believer in full Malthusianism. Even the dullest and most obedient normies have a basic skepticism when the claims are so grandiose and coming from literal Porky aristocrats like the Club of Rome.
>>733598 You're a fucking retard, for sure.
>>733600 Since Obama bought a beach house the ocean isn't rising and therefore climate change ain't real because why would he buy something that will be underwater in 40 years. I think that's his train of thought.
>>733600 It's pretty self-explanatory, not even the """CLIMATE CATSTROPHE!!!!!""" shills believe their own propaganda about ocean fronts being swallowed by water within a decade or less
>>733605 Sorry, I'm a bit slow, are you telling me there's no certain way of measuring sea levels, and we have to deduce what they are from the residential purchase of one man? Is that it?
>>733601 >but like most Americans, I just accepted the models because I didn't know enough. It took some digging, though not much So you're like an antivax mom but instead of vaccines it's ecology and instead of being a mom you're an incel.
>>733615 I just want the pope of radlib faggotry to be more consistent is all
>>733619 I am pretty sure that if the house of a Goldman Sachs advisor goes underwater he's not going to be all that bothered about just buying a new one; hell, goldman sachs would probably give him a new house wherever he wants, after he bailed them out to the tune of billions of dollars.
>>733619 So Obama is pretending to be a socialist, but is actually a liberal?
>>733618 And this is all the Malthusians have. Threats and character attacks. I don't know why people are so willing to believe the arch-capitalist National Geographic, if they claim they are socialists and abhor capitalism. You're taking propaganda from literally the richest of the rich. Further, I wager the insanity of the ecologists is promoted precisely so oil oligarchs can continue burning fuels, because they've made the opposition look like the shrieking maniacs that they are. There's no room to say, "hey, maybe burning fossil fuels just to burn them is pretty fucking silly", and certainly you're not going to allow for thorium or nuclear technology that would make the emissions issue moot. >>733615 A few meters of sea level rise - and it won't even be that - is not the end of the fucking world. Jesus, these stories just get more insane.
(250.50 KB 600x600 soy derp.png)
>>733626 >NOOOOO!!! THIS IS ALL THE MALTHUSIANS HAVE! THREATS AND CHARACTER ATTACKS!!
>>733626 And yet you still can't argue against someone actually arguing for socialist development of society which just straight up includes ecology as a natural part of its development.
I can spot the ecofascist illuminati deep state shills ITT just by the Maddow-tier snark >>733625 >>733618 >>733615 >>733603 >>733602 >>733600 >>733590 >>733562 >>733526 >>733483 >>733350 >>733349 >>733281 >>733259 >>733254 >>733244 >>733227 >>733629
>>733634 >Obama is a radlib Still waiting for you to explain this one
>>733634 >ecofascist i agreeing so hard
>>733637 see.thing
>>733626 >thorium or nuclear technology that would make the emissions issue moot. Lol so you did your research on reddit and youtube documentaries? Well anon congratulations for not falling for the bourgeois scientific cabal, Marx'd be proud of ya.
>the only way to improve society is to continue with the way society runs now but with more production :DDDD if you disagree you are malthusian and bourgeois :DDD
>>733633 Socialist ecology must be developed on a materialist and humanistic basis, and cannot have anything in common with the upper-class, ecofascist, malthusian green/climate catastrophexxx movement. >>733643 >nuclear bad muh chernobyl
(24.94 KB 330x330 download.jpg)
>>733643 Pic related it's the blog the ecofascist Malthusian deep state MSNBCIA Calergi plan Bezmenovian GLADIO C deep ecologist shills don't want you to see
>>733634 Yeah, it's really jarring that people come here with points straight from MSNBC, and you can even see the contrast with normal leftypol posts. But again, the brainwashing is strong, and a lot of these people are literally triggered to say the magic words when "climate change" or "global warming" is uttered.
>>733648 Socialist ecology doesn't deny a growing climate crisis though. You're arguing against your own spooks, you literally can not come up with a single argument against climate crisis, you only come up with arguments against liberalism
>>733653 >MSNBC Holy shit I'm prescient lmao
>>733654 There is no "climate crisis". There is global warming, but every fucking thing that happens in the world isn't a crisis. You might just be used to the past 12 years of Euro-American politics where political leaders all want to be Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, who reveled in every crisis they could manufacture. That, and there was a great deal of drivel pushed aggressively in left circles promoting climate doomerism as a recruitment tool. Only very recently have socialists and Communists pushed back against this horrible ideology. I will be overjoyed when the Communists fully break from the Greens and start with open denouncements, instead of this weak tea stuff where they still believe in the "climate crisis" while saying some weak tea about how the Greens are mean and stuff. The Greens are more than mean. They are a proven menace to humanity and one of the pillars of this new Hitlerism that must be stamped out.
(101.42 KB 397x580 e15-590.jpg)
>>733601 Massively based, blessed post
Why are the shittiest retards on this board always the ones that post shitty image macros as id to cover up that half the pretentious word salad shit they say is entirely devoid of substance?
>>733662 And once again, you don't ever show how climate crisis is wrong, you just guilt-by-association it with liberals, then rail about liberals.
>>733647 Idky leftypol anons are frequently so extraordinarily retarded when it’s so simple to just....not be Is this 8chan spooks?
What is to be done about the climate-denier incels?
>>733634 This board has a major problem with autism
>>733671 IN THE PIT THEY GO
>>733671 Banish them to Bangladesh, India, Burkina Faso, or any other country that will see its natural environment, climactic conditions, and food base collapse in the next few decades.
>>733672 The left needs massive disarmament of weaponized autism
Greens want higher meat consumption taxes so only the rich can eat it.
(1.06 MB shit's fucked.mp4)
>>733556 Because that's all that liberals can do within their ideological framework. They think the deniers are blocking action and they just need to convince them. Reality is, as most on this board already know, nothing will be done under capitalism as long as it is not profitable to do so. Convincing the last few holdouts is pointless.
>>733678 This, see >>733348
>>733348 >>733680 Don't worry there's a company in America that are solving the meat problem https://www.iflscience.com/environment/a-company-in-california-is-producing-meat-from-air/ We don't even need to worry about this so-called global warming anymore
>>733556 >>733679 >If you communists believe in climate change then why are liberals doing nothing about it beyond meaningless PR events!? Why is a statement as uncontroversial as “climate change is a threat to human societies” a genuinely divisive topic on this board? Why are people here being aggressively retarded?
>>733693 Why won't people carry water for every pet issue the liberals are hounding through? You have to, we said capitalism is bad!
>>733693 I'm wondering that too, like, nobody argued for malthusianism in this thread (which is widely regarded as a bad take among leftists) yet some people made ridiculous attempts at dismissing climatology science while making strawman arguments about how ecologists are terrible because they believe the capitalists lies about how the population must be reduced. There seem to be a few layers of conspiracy theory and retardness here.
>>733696 >Hehe, the conditions of Earth’s habitability of humanity is irrelevant to most people I truly see why communists have always been destined to off each other ITT >If climate change is real why do the people least threatened by it that also stand to gain in the immediate term by worsening the issue do nothing to stop it or put out token PR gestures at best?
(61.41 KB 1071x693 lh1iu18y2al31.jpg)
>>733700 >CONSPIRACEE THEOREEE
>>733707 >IF MODERN SCIENCE DISCOVERS SOMETHING IT MUST BE A LIE! You’re a fucking moron I’m glad Rafiq fags never fail to discredit themselves
>>733706 >I truly see why communists have always been destined to off each other I demand that every green shill ITT state their ideological line before further discussion.
>>733712 Marxism-Leninism-Malthusianism
>>733714 >>733712 Is Paul Cockshott a Malthusian liberal? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8hnAB43O4g
>>733712 Orthodox marxist.
>>733667 It literally is peak liberalism though. "crisis" is inherently political, and there has not been a true climate crisis in any recent history. You could only speak of climate crisis when agriculture was weak and incredibly labor-intensive, as it was during the feudal and slave society period. Even the potato famine in Ireland was literally due to Malthusian policies that demanded the death of the Irish, pretty much because racism. What these Malthusians want today is another potato famine, except worst; which is why they inflicted an untold number of malaria deaths in Africa because of, I shit you not, the fucking birds.
>>733724 Can you respond to the question here >>733720 ? I'm curious to hear about your answer.
>>733235 What’s with you faggots and arguing with people that don’t actually exist? Did you shatter your fucking skull before finding your way here? What part of communist board can you not comprehend? You think someone can’t simultaneously be a Marxist and read any text on Earth science or paleontology you stupid fucking dog?
Why would all these rich people and masses of educated professionals shill for ecofascism if it was any threat to them? They know it's not, it's another pretext to squeeze or even get rid off the poor. That is hat green politics is in practice.
>>731939 >That second vid The arctic looks like melting ice cream. Also this thread is getting raided hard. The oil industry must have an army of shills that search for anything related to climate change to comment on.
>>733736 >Why would all these rich people and masses of educated professionals shill for ecofascism if it was any threat to them? So people don’t rise up against them and capitalist accumulation can continue for a short while until it can no longer continue due to a shattered environmental base?
Can any comrade link me a version of Alexander Cockburn's piece against Norman Boralug and Al Gore? It's been deleted by the """new editorial committee""" at counterpunch, and paywalled at the nation.
>>733734 You're a class collaborationist.
>>733754 Fuck off you buzzword swilling faggot Sucking off fossil fuel porky You should be shot like a dog
>>733724 "Crisis" is a political term, yes, and here it is in so far as "i don't want to see lots of people suffer the effects of climate change" which is a political claim. However, "There is a climate crisis" does not inherently mean "therefore we should kill off lots of people or massively degrade our quality of life to drastically reduce resource usage in order to solve it". There is nothing that necessarily connects these. To constantly claim that they are necessarily linked is either a literal problem in your brain, or just flat out dishonesty. "There is a climate crisis, therefore we should socialize resources to use them more efficiently and distribute them more fairly, and get more use from what we have extracted already, and enact full employment to repair damages in order to resolve it" is also a completely valid answer that still retains the premise "there is a climate crisis". Not even getting into the part where arguing that you don't like the solution, therefore the premise is necessarily invalid, is just flat fallacious.
>>733750 The masses are not the ones buying this and getting panicked about muh sea levels. They have actual problems unlike college liberals. If the rich were scared off them they would give them social democracy, but there is no reason to be.
>>733724 Stop being obsessed with Malthus dude, nobody here loves him, the climate crisis is called like that because the climate change literally can kill humanity and that's resulting of humanity actions. It's like the Cuba crisis when we were close to an all out nuclear war which would have obviously been fucking disastrous for our species, and even end it. >>733754 You know Marx and Lenin spent an unhealthy amount of time in libraries reading bourgeois science right?
(4.39 KB 500x500 infrastruct.png)
>>733363 >It's actually a fair point to argue whether it's technologically viable in the sense of whether they can automate labour to the point of not needing the proletarian masses to subsist, to which I posit that it's a more likely eventuality than a solution to climate change at least There's no reason to think that capitalism either can or is even trying to do this. Looking at the facts we currently live in a era of technological stagnation, not an era of technologically accelerating progress. We could consider whether capitalism actually could, even-though it's currently not trying to. There are several questions we have to look at: First is the overall systemic aspects, capitalism is geared towards extracting surplus from labour, it can't actually profit from machines, because capital has to pay full price on machines, it only can get surplus from human workers, and the reason for this is that workers reproduce them self as well as produce surplus that the capitalist can steal. Machines do not reproduce them self, they have to be build. If you recreate machines in the image of workers, make them a self-reproducing system, they will stop being machines, start being a life-form that evolves, which means any controlling mechanisms that capitalists put in will fail, simply because it an evolutionary advantage for machine-life to not emit surplus the capitalists can capture, there's even a statistical aspects of thermodynamics that predicts this outcome. Second machines are not directed by money tokens, which is the interface that capitalists are using to influence the world, machines are directed by commands, the commands are given by technicians in deployment and engineers in development. There have been many attempts at making machines use money, but it always fails because it's so much easier to direct machines with commands so that even-though there were and still are attempts being made at making machines sensitive to money, it never goes anywhere. Because the command systems can be build faster and cheaper. If i had to give a reason for this i would say that money represents too narrow of a communication channel (a command can contain complex instructions, while a money transaction can only contain a number), and it gets harder and harder to compensate for this the more sophisticated systems become. I think there was a corporation (Sears) that tried out internal money-markets and they basically went bankrupt because of it. So advanced technological systems will not be controlled by capitalists moving around money an manipulating property titles, but rather by people that are issuing these commands. In the last 4 to 5 decades the capitalists have focused primarily on finding cheap labour, and have diverted relatively little effort towards increasing productivity, or pushing technological boundaries. Then there also is the problem of how far a mode of production can actually enable technological advances, capitalism isn't actually able to properly commodify computer technology and information systems, there's some of it, but it's mostly hacks that do not even remotely allow us to use the full potential of information systems. Other aspects capitalists try to interfere with sciences by trying to make knowledge a type of capital or commodity and that also isn't working because knowledge is purely a collective activity it breaks down if it gets chopped up and treated as an enclosed commons. So we can conclude that capitalism can enable a great deal of technological development but it's ultimately limited, and can only go so far. >But leaving aside the question of its eventual collapse, which indeed is a bit asinine because it's obviously going to collapse at some point, I do think that the feasibility of a long-term Elysium matters less than porky believing that a long-term Elysium is feasible when talking about porky striving towards it as a viable escape from climate change. We forget that even porky is irrationally invested in the logic of capitalism, maybe even more than we the dumb masses are, so they may as well hold the preservation of capitalism as more valuable then their own self-preservation and/or believe that somehow capitalism can achieve an Elyisum and escape their own doom indefinitely. A bit similar to Davos bougies thinking they can leverage capitalism against itself and solve climate change, but like through a different route. To me this just sounds like people banging their heads against a contradiction, i mean why are you talking about imaginary solutions in the minds of capitalists, how viable is it really to try to direct capitalists by putting thoughts into their heads, they are still bound by the dysfunctional logic of the system. Maybe our problem is that we are still thinking that capitalists will have a big influence on the future, maybe they are stuck in an impasse they can't possibly get out off, a historical dead end so to speak. And our impasse comes from still trying to win against capitalists, which causes us to get sucked into the same dead end. Maybe these people don't actually matter in the grand scheme of things any-more, and we have to look for the new structures that actually do. Human civilisation isn't going to end anytime soon, (your gloomy outlook is just in your head), but it's definitely going to change how it's organised. There are many looming crisis and the systems that will best manage these crisis are going to define the new mode of production to a considerable extend. Another factor that's going to play a role is the ability to enable technological benefits. It seems that technology is always easiest to roll out as infrastructure because that seems to have the lowest technical difficulties, even if the political difficulties are often greater, there maybe a tipping point where technical difficulties weigh heavier than political ones, and technological progress will come about from solving the political problems.
>>733759 Instead we should side with green porky, we have the common enemy of co2 :) You are like the socdems in 1914
>>733773 Nobody said this you genuinely dishonest faggot.
>>733769 >climate change literally can kill humanity Pure scaremongering.
>>733731 Cockshott has drunk the koolaid, but he's not hectoring the audience to believe The Science either or making ridiculously dishonest points. He's also trying to actually find a solution, but doesn't get that the entire argument rests on a trap. There is not a way to produce much without emitting carbon, so the demand to cut carbon emissions is basically asking large swaths of humanity not to breathe. About the only thing I can say is that, at the end of the day, humans existing is preferable to keeping Earth in perpetual balance (a balance in which the aristocracy and capitalists are curiously able to keep their unbalanced wealth, but this is the ecologists' commandment from their god). We could, of course, simply not produce shit we didn't actually need or want, that was made for consumerism; we could streamline manufacture and distribution, sacrificing customer convenience (you have to wait for the factory to produce your order after it was placed) for resource conservation. I don't think reasonable people are that greedy that they need their new car now now now (these days more Americans can't even afford a car, because their income is $20k or less).
>>733780 Of course not, but it is implicit. Everything that is not class struggle boils down to some degree of class collaboration, whether that is national unity or ecology.
>>733773 You should side with the international working class who you intend to sacrifice to transnational capital while claiming yet again that this is a move against liberalism you fucking rat Fuck, I don’t even know why I’m bothering with the circus freak anons in yet another shitshow of the most hardcore autistic anons informing the world of their unearned ego simultaneously trusting in capitalism while ranting about socdems or some horseshit You asked “muh tendency” as if this shit is like a fucking team sport game, a faggot fucking LARP, pathetic. As an ML (muh team!) I’d say that aggressive stupidity should never be tolerated and defending stupidity with conspiracy theorizing about “liberalism” of all who say you’re wrong should be a crime.
(38.40 KB 480x360 hqdefault.jpg)
>>733601 >you now remember 2016's chomsky telling his hipster audience to vote hillary because muh climate >tfw he will do it again this year
>>733789 It is not fucking implicit. Arguing that racism hurts everyone is not class collaboration unless you're going to resolve it with liberalism. Arguing that we develop socialism to abolish racism inherently implies class warfare, and arguing that we should solve climate change with socialism also implies class warfare. You are honestly one of the most dishonest or blinded people on this board.
>>733794 They’re an ex-polfag most likely They have far too many dumb as shit and flat out socially retarded takes to be a normal person
(28.64 KB 800x450 167646.jpg)
>>733795 >only an ex-polfag would blaspheme our lord and savior
>>733765 The crisis talk is pushed by those who have already decided humans are to be sacrificed. If you deal with the educated class when you are not part of their class, this is screamingly obvious. University students chant "we decide who lives and who dies", proudly. I saw this shit pushed aggressively in the schools when I was young, and the younger teachers believed in it like a fucking religion. It is already taken as an article of faith that the goal is eliminating people, reducing their standard of living, and most importantly controlling their behavior. The pretexts they use for this goal are multiple; an environmental crisis (which is really a political crisis because we have to believe in an absurdly rich ruling class with private mansions and most of the land denied to the commons), a coronavirus crisis (which only exists literally because the government refuses time and again to do the bare minimum things we expect a state to do in this situation, where a lot of people would have been perfectly fine with locking down MAJOR CITIES FIRST like any actually competent epidemiologist would have told you to do), a financial crisis, and every other kind of crisis imaginable. In this world-system, everything must be a crisis, even small things. Failing school is a crisis. Being harassed in school is a crisis. It is a defining feature of eugenism as a system - that it is a system in which the subject is subjected to "crisis" after crisis, and their thinking must be perpetually catastrophic. Then, the psychiatric institution declares "catastrophic thinking" to be an indicator of mental defect, which creates yet another psychiatric crisis (you don't read about this one in the propaganda though, but it would be as much a crisis as the things they call a crisis). All this "crisis" talk, over a climate change of less than 1C so far, with no convincing evidence that warming will be anything close to what these doomer models claim. Carbon emissions do not shoot up as much as the ecologists believe, and American living standards have already collapsed. Fewer people can drive cars, because they're literally too poor, so you don't have that excuse any more. The only way to push more austerity at this point would be to basically cancel disability and retirement payments or drive down the payments to ~500/month, and also set the wage floor to that so that Americans have to bunch together in shantytowns just to have enough food, where even running water and electricity become luxuries.
Imagine being so desperate you need people to believe the world will end to get them to consider socialism. This is asking for capitalists to provide a solution to the threat, which is what they will do through malthusian politics.
>>733806 Yes polfags are known for being lying cunts that rely on strawmanning to distract from their shitty non-points >You see the ecological crisis as a threat to humanity, you are on the side of liberal ecofascists! You deny the realities of the sixth mass extinction and ongoing ecological crisis, therefore you are an ally of fossil fuel firms, the vast bulk of the capitalist class, and the military state infrastructure Fuck off you faggot pseud
>>733789 Idiot. You have it the other way around. Not even going to argue with your retardation. >>733794 Maybe it's best to ignore him.
>>733824 Glad to see you finally have no argument at all you fucking faggot I hope oil porky’s cum tastes sweet
>>733796 >there is a growing climate crisis caused by the reckless brutal development of capitalism and the careless actions of capitalists and overproduction in the name of the profit motive, it is hurting the most impoverished members of society first who are unable to avoid the growing damages to the environment, we should resolve this by socializing resources and societal wealth, encouraging the development of social resources and leisure that are focused on giving as many people as possible access to the best communal resources; and carefully managing our production and extraction, both to manage our environment and for humane reasons of cutting back on labor time so that people are not slaves to production, while also ensuring that all have access to productive, fulfilling labor by making job programs to replenish and refresh the environment, which also gets many people the opportunity to experience new interesting parts of the world, and all the while hopefully healing much of the alienation caused by individualist consumption and production where is the class collaboration you fucking weasel
>Ethnographic research investigating natural resource extraction for fossil fuel+ systems remain insightful in this regard. Modelling studies, however, have exposed the seriousness of resource extraction and waste for fossil fuel+ systems. Drawing on a World Bank report, Jason Hickel estimates that making 2050 renewable energy targets will require mining “34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminium, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.” >This also includes increases in other minerals essential to solar, wind and battery technologies over the same period: 35-70% neodymium, 38-105% in silver, 920% in indium, 2,700% increases in lithium and is compounded with further increases (70%) with the promotion of electric vehicles. http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2020/05/20/green-capital-and-environmental-leaders-wont-save-us/ How do green shills suggest solving the depletion of natural resources for their zero carbon?
>>733835 Socialization of resources.
>>733838 That will make the lithium ore grow back.
>>729481 It's pretty horrific extinction is certainly one of the cards on the table, and the current climate events are things that weren't supposed to occur until the 2070s or so, especially in terms of melt rates. We'll likely have a BOE within the decade, after that happens things get very nasty. Climate change also isn't the only issue, it's a multifront problem with ecosystem collapse and major resource shortages all hitting around the same time period There's been no real attempts to mitigate climate change and there are unlikely to be any real attempts. The lag effect of this issue is such that any action needs to be taken decades in advance, for us today they needed to have carried out serious acts in the 1970s and 1980s. "Green" tech really isn't a savior here either, as it's not particularly green and relies on the fossil fuel base, much like our entire civilization since the 1750s has.
>>733842 It means that what lithium we have is used properly for its fullest extent. THat when some people are not using products that need certain rare resources, other people are getting access to them. You can't just "anti-malthusian" magic more lithium ore into existence either.
>>733835 In ideal dream world what we do is prioritize research and resources into getting off this rock in one fashion or another, and have people accept a reduction in living standards up to what is necessary to achieve that
>>733813 It is still the case though that the world will end if we continue along this path - not because of Gaia's revenge, but because the political and social order is so pervasive that it's choking the people and won't stop even when this world resembles the most hellish Nazified visions of the future imaginable. Not only will many people die, but the living will envy the dead.
>>733850 The point is to push us to the point of extinction then claim we never could have done anything else but at least we did it together socialistically :) At which point humanity will have proven to be a failed evolutionary experiment as we dwindle into extinction and the biological process of the Earth eventually resume and the existence of the stupid monkeys gifted with intelligence that thoughtlessly destroyed themselves will be forgotten and socialism will have been a fucking joke.
>>733862 Why does rationally planned production resemble anarchistic profit driven market capitalist production in your little monkey mind?
>>733835 Yeah it's almost like we're not going to do this, and chose death long ago.
>>733850 The point is that you're probably pouring immense resources into a boondoggle that won't even do anything. The ecologists don't get that human consumption has been collapsing. The imperial core isn't what it was 20 years ago. America is declining into literal shantytowns and people don't have their own cars any more. Capitalism still produces shit in its factories, hoping there will be buyers, but the myth of American consumption is going away. China and India produce more emissions now, and because Americans can't buy shit any more, they are producing for the wealthy Euro market and for their native markets. It is the part where China especially develops its own middle class, and encourages building power plants around the world, that has the eco-Malthusians spooked. Can't have the coloreds with their own industry and having nice things, after all, and these aristocrats really are motivated by an insane and uncompromising racism when they see an African.
>>733868 What the hell even is this claim? That we're going to develop solar power and then just implode in divine punishment for committing the sin of believing in climate change?
>>733835 >a reduction in living standards This concept always makes me feel uneasy, are the aborigines in the amazon resisting deforestation really worse off than people doing a shitty job in a city spending hours to commute but having a smartphone, a tv and a motorized vehicle? I feel 99% of the humanity would be better with less things, less commodities to choose from, while having good and efficient collective infrastructure, housing, tools, entertainment stuff etc.
>>733878 >We should empower the Market even more to make the Market weaker for socialism which involves strengthening capitalism because not doing so is fascist and racist Whew lass
>>733883 >less Do you mean fewer?
>>733881 I’m memeing, idk what this retard thinks, he usually argues that we should pave over every square inch of the living portions of the Earth and argues that this will have no consequences because they’ve never opened a single book on the history of the Earth. And honestly fuck it, if humanity destroyed every other living thing I truly don’t think it would be worthy of an existence, I don’t care what this faggot thinks. We wouldn’t be able to exist based off evidence of past mass extinction events, but we really shouldn’t either.
>>733888 Yeah, I'm tired and English is not my first language.
>>733862 >In ideal dream world what we do is prioritize research and resources into getting off this rock in one fashion or another, and have people accept a reduction in living standards up to what is necessary to achieve that I think that asking people to accept a reduction in living standards isn't reasonable as long as there's super rich people, it's probably the number one reason why people don't believe the scientists about the climate. If you kill off the luxury lifestyle of the super rich in the name of the climate then people would likely believe it. You very wrong about trying to escape from earth because of capitalism and it's effect on the environment, because even with all the damage that has been done so far it's still easier to fix earth while increasing living standards of people than actually trying to make another planet habitable.
>>733896 You should leave this fucking board if you’re going to continue to pretend that you’re arguing on Reddit and not with people who already accept the abolition of private property and capitalist rule as a necessary measure to encountering this problem. If you’re going to insist on intellectual dishonesty to consistently stifle discussion you should genuinely just fucking leave and find people your rants are applicable to.
>>733883 >This concept always makes me feel uneasy, are the aborigines in the amazon resisting deforestation really worse off than people doing a shitty job in a city spending hours to commute but having a smartphone, a tv and a motorized vehicle? I feel 99% of the humanity would be better with less things, less commodities to choose from, while having good and efficient collective infrastructure, housing, tools, entertainment stuff etc. Good and efficient collective infrastructure, housing, tools, entertainment stuff etc. is part of good living standards
>>733556 >Glow funded liberal movements >The left
(268.67 KB 379x379 1574150984355.png)
>>733908 >denying climate change to own the libs
>>733896 Good post.
>>733896 >I think that asking people to accept a reduction in living standards isn't reasonable as long as there's super rich people, it's probably the number one reason why people don't believe the scientists about the climate. 1. this literally doesn't follow 2. what would you say if we overthrow the bourgeoisie and scientists STILL argue this 3. why don't you go tell this to LIBERALS
>>733648 Agreed
>>733911 Remember when anons were denying covid is dangerous to own the libs?
>>733905 I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you react with such hostility and demands for exclusion on account of me taking current material conditions into account, this board doesn't exist in a parallel dimension. I always get suspicious when there's somebody talking about reducing the living standards of common people but is not talking about the upper crust.
>>733921 AAH AAHH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH I'M COOOOOOOOOOOOFFIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING
>>733911 I don't think he's saying that, I mean you have to recognize that there is a fuckload of porky shenanigans around environmental movements since two or three decades even if there is a big anti-capitalist tendency among them. You can read this if you want more intel. http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/
>>733921 It's a nothingburger
>>733921 covid wouldn't have been dangerous except that the Euro-American states decided to make it a crisis (like every other crisis they instigate) by refusing to do basic quarantine. If you locked down major US cities in early February and make it a firm lockdown - and despite the Chinaboos praising their dictatorship, such a lockdown is well within the authority of the US President and state authorities - it is unlikely coronavirus spreads as wildly as it did. Meanwhile you can tell smaller cities and towns to practice precautions. This, however, would require an honest media which can say to its people "there is a virus, and here is what you can do to protect yourself and those around you", and an honest President who can be trusted. The managerial, eugenist state can never be honest, not even for a second, but this was not important because the eugenist state wanted a crisis and wanted as much death and ruin as possible. It was only after the market crashed that they decided to make the crisis worse by doing a panicked national lockdown (more to prevent riots in the streets than to prevent the disease), and then hampering the distribution of medical care and gleefully throwing old people off of respirators for sadistic causes.
>>733924 >I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you react with such hostility and demands for exclusion on account of me taking current material conditions into account Because you’re intellectually dishonest, projecting your own social conditions onto others, and arguing like you’re on fucking reddit or something and all of us circlejerk to greta fuckinf thunberg and the green party 🖕🏽 People tend to dislike slippery cunts that insist on imposing on and accusing you of views you don’t even hold
>>733935 Honestly I just think the west has filled its top ranks with fucking idiots at this point, I don't think the moronic response to the virus is intentional since it's looking like they've pissed away their status as world superpower with it.
>>733939 this i'm tired of your stupid outright dishonesty
>>733939 >>733945 This is why we need the wojak script back.
>>733911 >Acknowledging climate change >Supporting NGO and glow funded freak shows Those are two different things retard
>>733942 Never assume stupidity when malice is an explanation. America was doomed anyway. Capitalism shat the bed, China played one of its cards to shut down the global economy and America could do nothing but go apeshit. So oil prices tank (and this was the story when the March 2020 crisis began, oil prices tanking and stores running out of everything), and people are beginning to panic. Locking down the country, as I said, was more about preventing a full scale riot in the cities, who already hated Trump and where a lot of Berniecrats were ready to riot over the whole political system. Nothing about the lockdown appears to have been a coherent strategy to stop the virus - it was literally "you all fend for yourselves, and even if you wear the mask, we're going to blame you plebs for this anyway". So we the people do our part, sacrifice whether we want to or not, and the rich get their bailout and stimulus. That's all the ruling class cared about. Actually saving lives looks bad on their actuarial report, because it's the old and infirm that die to this.
>>733955 One of my favourite parts of this year is the idea that some group of glowie behavioural modellers and bioterrorists have been taken out back and shot for destroying America by accident: https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/top-news/all-roads-lead-dark-winter/
>>733950 Funny how the only people that ever once mentioned liberals, Greta Thunberg, NGOs, XR, etc. were the people going apeshit ranting about malthusianism because someone said “How should communists deal with climate change?”
>>733896 By God you're dumb. Really, REALLY dumb.
(24.72 KB 500x461 gretamuscles.jpeg)
>>733939 >Because you’re intellectually dishonest, projecting your own social conditions onto others, and arguing like you’re on fucking reddit or something and all of us circlejerk to greta fuckinf thunberg and the green party People tend to dislike slippery cunts that insist on imposing on and accusing you of views you don’t even hold. Now i have no clue what you talking about, i kinda like Greta , she's probably not the next Lenin that's going to kick the Bourgeoisie into the dustbin of history, but she has major "toxicmasculinity" powers including the intense "male-gaze" stare, that ruffles certain people, and amuses me greatly, because it gives her regular power not just "girl-power". The reason I'm pestering you is really just because you said lowering living standards of regular people without mentioning the upper crust. I really do think that climate science denial is because regular people are being told they have to reduce their lifestyle while the rich can continue as before. People can accept that the party is over but not if the party continues for extra special people, then it will appear to them like climate science is just a pretext to make them reduce their lifestyle. It's not an entirely unreasonable reaction, this is a plausible motivation, even if it's incorrect. For a political strategy making the super-rich go first with reducing their lifestyle, would probably be very effective in terms of convincing people, because actions do speak louder then words. We live in a society that has lost quite a lot in terms of scientific literacy, and hence scientists do have an uphill battle to fight in terms of convincing people with explanations.
(29.55 KB 500x461 God.png)
>>733972 >By God you're dumb. Really, REALLY dumb. I'm going to need arguments as to why you think that is so, not just a reference to a deity.
>>733994 >pic related It doesn't even really look like it;s shooped kek
>>733629 holy oldfag
>>733994 Greta is backed up by billionaires, shady NGOs, car companies, banks and states even. Why? Because green tech "revolution" = money. And their endgame isn't to make life better or more sustainable, it's profit. She's just a figure head used to give their lobbying a human face and make the movement that goes with more organic. It's impossible she isn't aware of this but maybe she's really misguided. Bunkechan isn't r/breadtube or r/communism, we're mostly not libs or dengoids, the implication behind most of the posts about doing meaningful shit about the environment is getting rid of capitalism trough a more or less violent revolution. This means that one way or another there physically won't be an "upper crust" to ask about lifestyle changes after this.
>>734037 Well, she's autismo and probably possessed by demons, so it is possible she legit doesn't know what she's being animated to do. I imagine some day it will hit her like a truck though, and she will be ashamed of herself.
(78.45 KB 828x943 FB_IMG_1595873017832.jpg)
Evil (good) plan to save the world from climate change: Step one - secure a large amount of wealth. Step two - create large freshwater lakes artificially in order to irrigate water for agriculture and keep people from dying of thirst, also increasing rainfall in certain areas. Step three - acquire nuclear bombs. Twenty will probably work. Fifty for good measure. Step four - drill large holes in strategic areas - one in yellowstone national park, one in some other supervolcano on the other side of earth. The rest should be placed in the areas between the arctic and antarctic sea ice and any land masses on each pole. Step five - detonate all bombs. The volcanic ash thrown into the sky from two combined supervolcano eruptions will drastically decrease sunlight being able to enter the lower atmosphere and decrease the global tempurature. The ice will melt in the warmer oceans and simultaneously cool the warm oceans very quickly and flood coastal cities globally, dealing with a vast human population that would have died slowly over time anyway. Step six: enjoy the remains of earth!
(88.25 KB 700x394 lesson.jpg)
>>734089 >it's a "nuke the volcanoes" episode
>>734092 Dude whats wrong with nuking a few volcanos and throwing earth into a new ice age
>>729660 >The abolition of capitalism is necessary to stop climate change, but it's not sufficient. and yet at the same time you say, >At a minimum we're going to need a 40% reduction in energy production and getting rid of state functions such as police, prisons, military all of which would be basically day one of the collapse of capitalism (since 50% of economic activity [and by extension energy use]) in modern society is consumed by the state fruitlessly. In any case, energy use is the wrong metric when considering environmental recovery in communism. While it's true that a massive proportion of energy and labor time would be freed up after the fetter of capital is discarded, it's also true that a massive amount of labor and energy will be redirected toward environmental recovery efforts (reforestation, olivine quarrying and dumping, massively expanded energy/environmental research, etc). Point is that a reduction of energy use is only good for not making the problem worse - the best you could hope for under capitalism, but not the best thing possible. To actually solve the problem we need to actively remove the ~500GT of excess CO2 from the atmosphere, which means expending energy. >>730589 >anarchist version of communism There is no 'anarchist version of communism' friend, anarchy (no state) and communism (no wage labor, no state, etc) are definitionally equivalent. The disagreement between Marxists and anarchists is not about the destination, it's about the journey. It is concerning that you're on /leftypol/ and yet haven't grasped basic definitions yet.
>>734101 It doesn't work, we've been over it enough times to warrant an infographic.
>>733813 A United Socialist States of Earth wouldn't magically make global warming go away, but it will makes things a lot easier you moron.
>>733144 We don't even know what the fuck is killing off the bees and starfishes how the fuck can we maintain entirely artificial agriculture?
>>732944 Again, none of this pipe dream is possible if we kill off nature before we understand it. I am not even advocating for harmony with nature, but recklessly thinking that we can innovate and think our way of this quagmire we are in on our own without preserving and understanding nature is retarded. Nature is a resource, not just for material stuff but for knowledge and design.
(37.97 KB 128x128 1595368134797.gif)
Non retarded take: Is hard to envision a clmate changed earth and it's consequences. If you know even a little about climatology and meteorology is the fact that we are victims of the chaos theory and the butterfly effect. Eg. A lot of plants underwater have been dying but at the same the jellyfish population has been expanding. Would socialism solve it? Just as much as socialism will give you a girlfriend. People like to say that socialism will take us to mars through cocksucking powered machines and how it would make it easier when in fact no one can tell how good certain industries would operate under socialism and way less something as chaotic as impact on the climate. TL;DR: If they say that socialism would fix the climate have no understanding of socialism or climate. If you really want to help the planet, study environmental engineering and get your hands dirty with industries and government.
If there is one positive about climate change it’s the destruction of the suburbanite lifestyle
>>735207 All the urbanoid cities will flood too, so theres another bonus Ruralfag gang
>>734211 Yeah dude, adopting a social system that doesn't require literal endless exponential growth and abandons the profit motive, allowing us to allocate social resources to repairing environmental damage without requiring more production elsewhere can't possibly help the environment
>>735901 Capitalism doesn't require endless exponential growth though. You have to stop thinking that depressions at all bad for the owners. Their concern isn't about expanding value, but holding power by whatever means. If capitalism's overriding desire was growth, then "degrowth" policies wouldn't be the rage with aristocratic Porkies. Capitalism without growth = monumental crash, and the way capitalism works demands that it faces continual crises. But the need for growth is not limited to capitalism as a system. Historically, the growth of the economy was seen as desirable because building more stuff would ultimately translate into bigger armies and building major projects. The moment the capitalist world had attained post-scarcity on many basic human needs, was the moment we transitioned to a new kind of class society, because the ruling class saw distributing these products of human labor as a threat to their power and against their deeply held Social Darwinist principles. We haven't needed capitalism to handle scarcity in any real sense for a long time, and in fact natural resources are not endlessly consumed in modern society but are conserved and managed for a multitude of reasons. The argument of an endlessly consuming capitalism is literal Malthusianism disguising itself in the language of Marx. The so-called climate "crisis" could be resolved even within capitalism, though it would have to transition even more obviously to state capitalism. The crisis isn't answered because (a) it's not a real crisis, and governments and major planning firms can project reasonably whether their business model can persist for at least the next few decades, and (b) so far as there is climate change, the poor will face the consequences of Malthusianism, so the people at top see it as a good thing anyway. The only fear of the aristocrats is that a mass uprising would figure out that they should have raided elite mansions and estates decades ago and systematically hanged the masters and their sycophants, which is why the narrative is so so important to them. The arguments to make against capitalism are far simpler - that it's stupid, that the idea that some boss deserves anything at all is a bunch of horseshit, and that the recurring crises that damn the poor and hungry are totally unnecessary. The ecologist argument isn't a socialist argument, but a poison introduced to batter at the reasons why the workers - and all of us - should be opposing capitalism and market logic.
>>736027 Yeah but the life-style of the super-rich is the least sustainable by a huge margin, and even the current climate narrative allows for endlessly pointing fingers at the top.
>>734204 thinking there is a nature to be preserved in the first place is what’s retarded. as most climate scientists point out, even if all manmade greenhouse gas emissions stopped tomorrow there would still be climate change.
>>736959 The super rich are always, strangely, immune to climate narratives. It kind of happens when the narrative is written by the fucking Club of Rome. They set up this whole apparatus we have now so that the super rich always sustain their advantage, even if they have to nuke their own supposed country to keep everyone else down. The people ruling this world are monsters, truly sadistic monsters who will never, ever stop.
>>734089 >its another episode of big lake shilling by the schizo
>>736027 doesn't competition require firms to constantly expand? if you aren't tapping into new markets your competition will. anti-competitive practices being the only recourse.
>>736027 >If capitalism's overriding desire was growth, then "degrowth" policies wouldn't be the rage with aristocratic Porkies. Who cares what aristocrats are calling for? It's easy for them to dogwhistle about the evils of capitalism from a position that's already secured by whatever limited degrowth policy they have in mind. When those at the helm of managing firms, ceos and board of directors, start making degrowth policy decisions, threatening profitability and the livelihood of the firm, I'll buy this.
>>736027 >Capitalism doesn't require endless exponential growth What is the goal of production under capitalism? The expansion of capital: M -> C -> M' This is literally the basic premise of Marx's entire critique >The so-called climate "crisis" could be resolved even within capitalism, though it would have to transition even more obviously to state capitalism. This would require some kind of "ultra-imperialism", this is an idea of Kautsky, read Lenin's imperialism on why there will never be one big monopoly under capitalism >The arguments to make against capitalism are far simpler - that it's stupid, that the idea that some boss deserves anything at all is a bunch of horseshit, and that the recurring crises that damn the poor and hungry are totally unnecessary. This is a moral argument, not a scientific one. We are Scientific socialists, not red liberal socdems. We need a scientific analysis in order to be able to understand what the real and objective problems are.
>>736027 >it's not a real crisis, Nobody has yet shown why the data either is fake or the conclusion is incorrect. It had always come down to the claim that "the rich aren't doing anything so it can't be real" or just straight up using Lysenko's argument. Both of which are completely fallacious.
(237.18 KB 201x218 ezgif.com-crop-30.gif)
Surface level methane in the last 6 days on the Siberian side of the Arctic.
>>737056 They also have completely ignored the obesity epidemic, coronavirus, and debt explosion because they understand they will always be able to expend resources that at others can't to ensure they always have the best. You can not only look at the ruling class to understand the truth of the situation. They are not infallible and they operate under different assumptions.
>>737619 Context for brainlets?
>>732919 >doesn't matter if Green Stalin comes It most certainly does. It's the difference between a worldwide apocalypse and a worldwide major crisis that remains fairly manageable.
(68.62 KB 1080x360 1080x360.jpeg-2.jpg)
>>732923 >>732927 >111 Fahrenheit wtf >>737638 maybe that anon speculating about oil shills ITT was onto something
(254.69 KB 1200x1119 greta wall.jpg)
>>737746 Climate Stalin
>>737753 hey, it's me again, still waiting for proofs
>>737629 Deadass When people say Climate Stalin they aren’t memeing that a magic strongman will make everything better They’re really talking about possibly decades of war communism so that our suffering might allow our children to live in a better world Much like how the original Stalin’s tenure was the terrible time of the Great Famine, the Great Patriotic War, and the beginning of the Cold War It sucked shit but at least the next generation was born into a better world, and considering Hitler’s plans it really was a dire situation of making sure there’d even be a next generation
>>737753 >Getting banned for going on retarded rants about how climate change is a malthusian lie concocted by dastardly nazi scientists in their vicious struggle to destroy based oil firms Based
>>737769 >based oil firms Yes.
>>737770 I miss him so much...
>>737773 I'd rather be in a room with him than any western faggot ITT who thinks overpriced paper cups will save muh planet
>>737774 Nobody is saying that. You're just a dishonest fuck head that cant argue against anyone's actual points. Instead you argue against a strawman you made up. Exxon, BP or however you work for needs to fire you. Its just schizo ranting with radlib accusations in between.
(77.97 KB 800x481 LYNXMPEG1J1HD_L.jpg)
>>737780 Ok, radlib
>>737746 I wish this wasn't just her misusing an idiom. >>734211 Socialism would allow us to stop fucking things up worse and to do things that could help course correct, like carbon sequestration.
>>737789 >Petrobras Então é para isso que você trabalha agora.
>>737807 >implying she's misusing it
>>737770 Nobody complains about developing countries having oil firms because they're a necessary part of development of industrialization. Once you have fully industrialized it becomes a duty to develop the ecological counters to prevent the damage of industrialization
>>729481 Climate change is a fact; you can see the data from NASA, USGS, NOAA and universities. Human causes for climate change? I'm not sure of the direct correlation besides hockey stick graph and changes through industrialization. Future collapse? Can scientists make predictions on point of no return? Nah, just like they cannot predict earthquakes. However, some climate scientists have pointed out that there are certain collapses that could happen that would make it worse.
I'm of the view production doesnt need to slow down either. Dumb libs think this while taking on the blame for plastics by recycling. You can solve energy problem by going nuclear and alt energy. You can solve plastics problem by banning single use plastics.
>>729491 Humans have survived at minimum two ice ages; probably more if you include transitional fossils back to 3mya. This is sensationalist garbage that does nothing to address actual problems, but instead creates bullshit Hollywood movies.
>>737929 Humans survived two ice ages in conditions radically different from the Twenty-First Century. Ngl man all of your arguments have been hot dogshit You’re trying to reference paleontology and prehistory but you never looked into any of this all that deep so your insights are useless.
>>737909 >Nobody complains about developing countries having oil firms I do faggot. Being a poorfag is no excuse to destroy the planet >inb4 productivist s e e t h e
>>737933 > Humans survived two ice ages in conditions radically different from the Twenty-First Century. Pretty nebulous > Ngl man all of your arguments have been hot dogshit What? This is literally my third post in this thread. > You’re trying to reference paleontology and prehistory but you never looked into any of this all that deep so your insights are useless. True, but neither have you unless you're an expert? Climate is changing; this normal in Earths cycle. As for total collapse of societies? Some will, but not all. It wont be the end of humanity; you'll see mass migration, etc. Just like you've seen in the past.
>>737951 >earths cycle You’re completely retarded. This is not a normal warning, this is 100% caused by human GHG, every major scientific body agrees with this. A 7 degree warming over land means Africa and large parts of Asia become unliveable, there will be millions of climate migrants and thousands of species will go extinct, throwing the ecosystems of the world into chaos.
>>737905 Way to miss the point
>>738039 Tudo bem propagandista petrobras
>>737998 >7 degree warming Celsius or fahrenheit? Fahrenheit would be disaster Celsius would be the fucking apocalypse, literally soylent-green tier global warming.
>>737951 >Just like you've seen in the past. Not really, the one event in our past that may happen is when humanity shrunk to about ten thousands in a valley during the previous mass extinction. We won't see an end to humanity, but an end to civilization.
(2.35 MB 3264x2448 20200801_224643.jpg)
>>729481 BEHOLD THE ANSWER TO THE ENERGY CRISIS!
>>737998 Im not disputing humans acceleration of climate change. I am disputing the sensationalized post apocalyptic garbage that is coming out of it.
>>738183 >solar panel <uv light >shine uv light on solar panel and power it with the energy <??? >profit!
(242.46 KB 498x338 tenor (1).gif)
>>734211 Adding to my argument this is a good example of a retarded take and a person that doesnt understand climate or socialism >>735901 Instead of doing an entire disection of why he is retarded let's tackle the single first point that comes to mind and that would be "allowing us to allocate social resources to repairing enviromental damage" tl;dr: No one knows where and how to allocate resources Expanded: Like I said before, the predictiong methods to analize the future effects on climate are shit. We just as good of a chance at understanding Macro-economics. We don't know where or how to "alocate" resources. A great example is terraforming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfo8XHGFAIQ
>>738322 T. Neoliberal shill
>>737942 I'm not even a productivist. I'm just pointing out that fossil fuels are unfortunately the easiest way to introduce extraneous energy in large amounts into societyb allowing for the _mass_ use of capital on a new level. Unfortunately this mostly gets sucked out of the society anyway in most "developing" countries and is an important step in resolving the conflict between the natural world and human endeavors
>>738290 we should tell the proles that one of the goals of communism, is to give the prole all solar panels. enough to make them energy efficient and independent. 100% energy independent 100% homeownership, along with yards seen as a use right to you, as your personal property. we must stress how the common man gets to own MORE in our system.
>>738976 >we must stress how the common man gets to own MORE in our system. yes
(401.48 KB 447x438 ggggggggggggg.png)
>>738183 Should have put a cable powering the fan from the turbines
>>738976 Some homes will be much more suitable for solar energy than others.Every house having a few panels is less efficient than having huge solar fields.
it's not possible to make exact statements about how bad it's going to be with any reasonable degree of certainty. but there's no rational reason whatsoever to be hopeful about this. all the uncertainty is in the bad direction. the fact that we can't say what exactly will happen for sure does not mean we don't know with a high level of certainty it's going to be extremely bad and worse than you could possibly imagine. don't have kids.
>>729632 it's not exaggerated, exactly the opposite, ipcc is considered the consensus position and it's hopelessly complacent, not accounting for positive feedback loops or non-co2 greenhouse gases. you are correct to point out that the ecological crisis is multifaceted, the carbon-climate crisis being just one part of it and probably not even the worst. all of the parts of the crisis interact and make each other worse in unpredictable and catastrophic ways.
>>729491 I think that we should ditch the capitalism-socialism dichtomy for this issue. No capitalist nor socialist can point to a perfect society of their own. It is a smattering myriad of minor and major things that should be done. If the climate goes haywire, we will be facing a lot of local climates that have no current equivalent. So I can't see why the solution should only be economic models that are present now. It will probably be an undescribable mix of capitalism and socialism that will do the job. The capitalists are quite smart. They are not trumpeting that more capitalism will solve everything. Partly because a lot of denialism because of the vested interests. But partly because of sheer slyness. Because if time someone says that capitalism will solve all of this, all the anti-capitalists have to do is to direct their searchlights on some capitalist made environmental disaster and just let the AA hammer it them into the ground. (And just a friendly reminder: Capitalists basically invented greenwashing.) So if you on the other hand just says that socialism and/or communism will solve this, all the capitalists have to do is to direct *their* searchlights on the plentitude of environmental mismanagement in USSR and China and let their AA dance. Net result: No one has established a clear hegemony and another day has passed. And I've come to the conclusion that The Great Leap Foward has nothing to do with socialism. It was socialists that was victims of magical thinking. We could solve the energy crisis by wrapping Marx in copper wire, replace his gravestone with a magnet and then let him turn in his grave over the total anti-materialism that was Mao's magical thinking. I think that we should become even more materialistic and start think on the issue of resource management as such. Like do like version of what Heidegger did when he said that the latest 2500-ish years of philosophy was crap and just ask ourselves naively "How can everyone get clean water?" and try to answer them in a direct way as possible that doesn't require theory this or that. *Then* we can go back to whatever political position we have. Because dead sparrows isn't a hill I want to die on.
>>733344 Not the same Anon, but you could argue that Greta sounds like the conservatives did in the 60s.
>>733253 >Kuwait had ca 2/3 of the oil reserves of Iraq >still had to do slanted drilling
Wind turbines are fucking loud and you don't want to live near one.
>>743917 would take a wind farm over a motorway any day having wind farms instead of traffic would have the added benefit of being able to stay alive, too.
>>738285 >Im not disputing humans acceleration of climate change. I am disputing the sensationalized post apocalyptic garbage that is coming out of it. Hundreds of Syria hotspots isn't sensationalizing. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-the-pentagon-thinks-about-the-climate-crisis-887832/ >There is a strange contradiction at the heart of our federal government and its response to climate change. While most of Washington has been woefully neglectful of the crisis or outright denying its existence, what is arguably our most conservative institution — the U.S. military — has begun taking the crisis very seriously. GOP legislators might make nonsensical statements about how “sea level rise” is a “left-wing term,” but the Pentagon is well aware of the dangers that climate change — which it refers to as a ‘threat multiplier’ — poses for its installations and mission. After all, you “can’t fight a war unless you’ve got a place to leave from,” noted General Gerald Galloway, formerly of the Army Corps of Engineers. As many as 46 U.S. military bases were recently deemed threatened by the heightened risk of flood, drought, and wildfire brought on by climate change. https://www.amazon.com/All-Hell-Breaking-Loose-American/dp/1627792481 >The Pentagon, unsentimental and politically conservative, might not seem likely to be worried about climate change―still linked, for many people, with polar bears and coral reefs. Yet of all the major institutions in American society, none take climate change as seriously as the U.S. military. Both as participants in climate-triggered conflicts abroad, and as first responders to hurricanes and other disasters on American soil, the armed services are already confronting the impacts of global warming. The military now regards climate change as one of the top threats to American national security―and is busy developing strategies to cope with it.
>>743917 Cry harder zoomer. We're making affordable electricity whether you like it or not.
>>744565 Enjoy your loss of hearing, mental insanity and liquefied internal organs due to infrasonic waves.
>>744571 Let's just go with nuclear power probably safer
>>744633 it's not and we can't. there is no one capable of doing nuclear on a sufficient scale to make a difference. states are too weak and private corporations are incapable. we've already run out of time on nuclear. it could form the basis of a sustainable energy economy in the distant future, but it won't help us prevent or survive the initial acute crisis.
>>729481 >How bad is it really? The sooner proles revolt, the better chance we stand, to survive it. You better accelerate capitalism's destruction.
(204.08 KB 600x364 SKB-SFK.jpg)
>>744697 Part of that is because there's been a constant hemming and hawing on nuclear power. There's no large, serious effort to make thorium reactors viable. Germany just ended nuclear power like that *despite* Merkel having photo-ops with Thunberg (and to be honest, Thunberg is a fence-sitter). The plans of having a nuclear waste storage in the south west US and keeping people out by making scary artificial trees and burying thousand of skeletons got budget cuts. And the swedish proposal to store nuclear waste is a fucking joke! It will be buried under the sea-level. In one of the most adventure-friendly and exciting and inviting environments possible: https://www.slutforvarforsmark.se/plats-och-metod/ But take a look at the island outside Forsmark nuclear power plant. A fucking atoll! A future civilization will be really curious about it. I don't know how much european royals, nobles and merchants knew about The Pacific. But what was important wast that according to the Bible, they all lived in a post-post-apocalyptic society, The Deluge, you know. Everything strange was for a while interpreted literally as things swept away during The Deluge. Then they realized that dinosaurs wasn't animals that didn't get any room on The Ark. So we can assume two things. If there's a "reset" things will sooner or later repeat themselves. Including the renaissance and the age of exploration. And we can be sure that future humans will not believe that they live in a post-post-apocalyptic society. They will know that, because unless you're in some totally undeveloped area of the world, you will sooner or later see proofs of our civilization. Be it ruins or old country roads. So sooner or later some future european expidition to the Pacific will find the old nuclear testing grounds. With concrete domes etc. And they will probably interpret it as something really important. Because it's right out there in the middle of nowhere. And it is not a fortress. And maybe they would confuse the shape of the atolls with the importance of them. And then some swede would be reminded that there's a ring-shaped island just a bit from Stockholm and Uppsala! And then start poking around in the ground. If someone thinks that digging up old nuclear waste is too much for a pre-industrial civilization, please recall that nothing is beyond a strong central power. Just ask the ancient egyptians or romans. >>744713 >accelerationism Name one case where that has worked.
>>744883 >Part of that is because there's been a constant hemming and hawing on nuclear power. There's no large, serious effort to make thorium reactors viable. this is a common narrative, especially among people who want to blame the early environmentalist movement for climate change and among irrationally pro-nuclear people, but i'm skeptical. seems to me far more like the political conditions for nuclear power were already being hollowed out well before it finally went out of style. nuclear power and a strong state were akin to communism, so they had to go.
>>744939 >this is a common narrative, especially among people who want to blame the early environmentalist movement for climate change and among irrationally pro-nuclear people, but i'm skeptical. seems to me far more like the political conditions for nuclear power were already being hollowed out well before it finally went out of style. nuclear power and a strong state were akin to communism, so they had to go. I think that the environmentalists are not really to blame. I can only speak of Sweden with some authority. The ur-culprit is Thorbjörn Fälldin. He was an amateur actor and technically a farmer, but managed to present himself as this simple peasant that totally didn't had spent most of his adult life in politics. One thing he said was that he didn't want a "nuclear society". He didn't specify what that meant, but it sounds bad, right? So it's quite natural that the 1980 referendum was a total shitshow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Swedish_nuclear_power_referendum Only Line 1 and 3 makes sense. But Line 2 was just a way to play for time. A power grab. Line 2 can be summed up with "devolve, but with reason" (the original word is "förnuft", and it does sounds really dorky in swedish compared to "reason" or "sense", believe me). The second culprit are the unfunny comedians with their hardi-har-har-jokes about nuclear power. And in the decades after it has been a constant stop-and-start policy. It's like I give you a bag of money you can spend on clothes. Then suddenly says that whitin 6 months a 5-year moratorium on purchasing clothes will be put upon you. Then I spend some years belittling you because you look like a bum. And we can discuss responsibility back and forth. But some decade ago I read about some nuclear powerplant that had mislaid the blueprints from the 60s. But given the circumstances, why should they care? The third culprits are Ingvar Carlsson and Birgitta Dahl who after the Chernobyl disaster made a totally irrational power move by passing a thoughtcrime law on calculating the cost of new nuclear plants. What happened was that the programmes and courses on the unis about nuclear power physics shrank to nothing. The law was abolished in 2006. But it was only until at least 2010 that it got "hot" again. Compare with Finland where they have long term planning. Olkiluoto-3 began being built in 2005 and went commercially online last month. So if we guesstimate that it will take 40 years to develop breeder reactors that can burn off the waste, then come up with a budget for it. Because it is quite interesting that Sweden did manage to develop a multirole fighter on its own; Saab JAS 39 Gripen. And now we're talking long-term-planning. It was in 1979 that a replacement for 35 Draken and 37 Viggen was prepared. In 1982 a decision was made. 1988 first flight. 1996 airforce service began. Expected service life: 50 years. So it may be retired in 2046 - 67 years after 1979! But this does not hold a candle to B-52 who will serve way into the 2050s. And speaking of costs. The B-29 was more expensive to develop than The Manhattan Project. Kinda makes sense, since an airplane has much more shaky parts. What does this detour prove? That states can decide to put trough expensive and long-term projects if they really want to.
>>745933 it's funny, olkiluoto has been the main reason why i don't believe anyone on this planet is capable of implementing nuclear power safely and quickly enough and on the kind of scale required to make a difference for climate change.
>>745960 I don't know anything about the decision process for Olkiluoto-3. But the date of the building suggests that it wasn't made to satisfy some kind of populism. Compare to Merkel who totally sharted for everyone. All this when brown coal is still being mined, will only increase the demand for it: https://news.yahoo.com/mine-expansion-threatens-german-villages-despite-coal-exit-042512970.html
>>747112 >Coal exit So what? Nuclear is back on the menu?
I've reached the point where I actively avoid climate news for the sake of my own mental well-being
>put thrusters on earth >push it away from the sun when too hot >push it close to the sun when too cold Wow, I just fucking solved climate change.
>>748265 Brilliant! Now how do we get the governments around the world to cooperate on such a project?
>>748276 Well this is where imperialism comes in.
>>748265 Do you have any idea how powerful such thrusters would have to be to even slightly change earth trajectory? At the required amount of fuel, you fuck up the climate even more! You might have a better chance using the cinetic energy of a VERY big ass asteroid, providing you can found one in the solar system that can be fit, that you can install a device that can slightly alter its trajectory by working for several years straight, and hoping you don't fuck up the calculus and the asteroid end up crashing on earth. (unless you send it to America then it would be worth itand glorious.)
>>748276 >>748265 There is a realistic alternative: an inflatable, transparent filter on Lagrange 1. It would cost 2 to 4 billions and solve global warming once and for all by reducing the IR energy the planet receive. It can be done in one year.
>>748399 >AM / FM >Actual Machines >Fucking Magic <--- You are here.
>>748399 Even assuming the engineering is trivial, you have to consider the political side of this. Good luck getting the world governments to agree on doing this and the details of how.
>>748399 Then why haven't anyone done it yet?
>>748418 If it can be easily done by just one country then it doesn't really need international approval. Who's gonna stop the country that's gonna launch the filter?
>>748265 No even better how about Geoengineering! Let me explain: >Put sulphur in the air >Blocks incoming sunlight somewhat >So we don't have to change fast >This will allow the fossil fuel companies to have one last big suck on the remaining oil >Small problem: also blocks heat leaving the earth and when a hole appears we will get baked, also we don't know the ecological impact
>>748399 True, this will definitely not cause an ecological collapse for the plants and ocean algae!
(120.82 KB 1280x720 1438225616321.jpg)
>>748423 >Who's gonna stop the country that's gonna launch the filter? Who do you think?
>>748399 or we just nuke some place and cause nuclear winter, so we can all keep eating big MAc
>>748435 We should nuke America and culturally appropriate big mac
>>729676 Crickets.
(481.37 KB 1880x907 NASABudget.jpg)
>>748399 What diameter would this object need to be to shade the Earth in any detectable manner? Also where are you pulling this 2-4 billion from? No fucking way. It's like you don't even understand how money works. Fucking spacetards, I tried doing an image search for NASA budget, and the only thing that comes up is, spacetards doing this misleading "NASA BUDGET AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL FEDERAL BUDGET, GIVE US MORE MOBNEYS!" Spacetards are so dishonest. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nasa+budget+total&t=ffsb&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FVUzAtU2JibvCcv16UYXX5fIg0m0YqkcTCv0LPyK3qcM.png%3Fwidth%3D580%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D7e049bef2c404f29c3224426eae2201baab6166d >Give me 4 billion plebs! I'm building a giant inflatable at Lagrange 1!
>>748488 Yeah where will this money come from? We already gonna spend $1 trillion for coronavirus relief package which includes at least $7 billion for weapons programs, part of $29 billion for defense overall.
Sun is 151.74 million km from Earth. L1 of Sun-Earth is 1.5 million km from earth, so about 1/100 the distance between Sun-Earth. To completely eclipse the Sun from a single point on Earth, you need something 1/100 the size of the Sun at L1. Sun's diameter is 1.393 million km, so you need something that have a 13,930 km diameter. To completely eclipse the Sun from ALL point on Earth, just add (1-1/100)*(Earth's diameter)=12,610 km to that value. It works out to be 26,540 km. 20 nm thick Aluminum would reflect sunlight by 90%, according to Wiki. Of course the thinner the material is the harder it is to manufacture. So it's better to use thicker materials with holes in them than thinner ones. The math surrounding average material thickness versus its transparency would still stay the same. To cut sunlight by 2% (consensus figure to counteract the entirety of industrial revolution), you need a porous Alunimum film of average thickness of 0.44 nm with a diameter of 26,540 km. That's gonna weight 837,000 tonnes. Heaviest rocket ever launched, Saturn V, weights 3,000 tonnes. Largest man made object at L1 weights less than 1 ton.
The James Webb radiotelescope use solar shield like this. >>748418 We are talking about half of the cost of the nuclear tank the US send on Mars. Russia or even France alone can pay for it. >>748420 Global warming is used as an excuse for some people to grab power and by others to pass regulations and raise taxes. No one with a bit of power want to solve the global warming problem. >>748427 Plants feed on UV, not IR. >Temperature will fall This is the point. We can make it with several parts and rotate them to increase or decrease IR radiation. >>748447 First of all, to cover 100% of the planet it would need to be smaller than the planet. Second, we want to reduce the IR by one percent. The filter in itself can be only a few micrometers thin. This is why making it inflatable is a good way to deploy it.
>>748585 Thanks for doing the math smart-anon. I only knew enough to know his figures made no sense.
>>748634 >First of all, to cover 100% of the planet it would need to be smaller than the planet. >Second, we want to reduce the IR by one percent. The filter in itself can be only a few micrometers thin. This is why making it inflatable is a good way to deploy it. I deleted my post because I realized I was fucking up the basics of shadows. Debunk this one: >>748585 Also you still haven't said where you're getting your 4-5billion dollar projection from.
>>748585 With your numbers, we need 2,43 cubic m of aluminum, so with 2,7g/cm3 so 2,7t a cubic meter, payload would be 6.6t.
>>748652 Your math is wrong. You probably have mistaken km with m.
>>748643 What do we need? A control module, a small solar panel, an antenna... all of this is cheap. MLI and RCS will be the only expensive parts of the craft, and refueling of the RCS tanks the only real issue we have.
While we're on the topic of space engineering, lunar solar power is in reality the cheapest and cleanest way to produce energy in such abundance that it can be used to draw back down all the excess CO2 already in the atmosphere.
>>748652 I know what's wrong. You're from European countries that use comma (,) as decimal separators. I don't.
(731.00 KB 2764x1800 boZhtHC.jpg)
(390.56 KB 1589x705 collisions.jpg)
>>748659 This one actually makes sense. Also eliminates the inevitable collisions as more satellites are created.
>>748659 That or fusion reactor. >Humanity will die before we run out of fuel >Cheap >No CO2. At all. >No radiation once the reaction is over Not one downside.
>>748673 You will have to build and maintain the orbits of some additional satellites in order to relay power to sides of the Earth the moon is not currently facing.
(97.50 KB 1229x632 ISS.jpg)
>>748658 >What do we need? A control module, a small solar panel, an antenna... all of this is cheap. MLI and RCS will be the only expensive parts of the craft, and refueling of the RCS tanks the only real issue we have. Fucking manufacturing it in space you doofus. Even just to manufacture this device here on Earth, without even worrying about sending it into space, would cost more.
>>748688 >>748659 Not to mention, you need to have the surface of Belgium of solar panels on the Moon. And the ultrathin dust will be on every moving part. And of course there is the problem of sending the energy back home. We don't have microwave receptors able to do that and radiations don't go straight in inhomogeneous atmospheres. And then, of course we need to move this energy to the other side of the world.
We need to have a one world government to solve climate change.
>Solar orbiter >300M It's not the same as an entire manned research station placed on orbit with the shuttle and Protons. Cost to LEO is not 2 millions per tons.
Summary of ice core data: Humanity started the 18th century on track for the end of the interglacial period and return of the ice age in 10000 years time. The first western industrial revolution rearranged that schedule for 20000 years time, which is where we were by the beginning of the 20th century. It was about then that the insulating effects of CO2 were first discovered. By 1950 it looked completely uncertain when the ice age would resume, maybe hundreds of thousands of years time. In the next 70 years the world became hotter than it had been in the last 100,000, the equivalent of 5000 years climate change under natural conditions. The fossil record shows it can get way hotter than this, but it has never happened so fast.
>>748696 >Not to mention, you need to have the surface of Belgium of solar panels on the Moon. And the ultrathin dust will be on every moving part. Not a problem, solar panels on the moon can be made drastically simpler, thinner, and with less materials because they don't have to contend the Earth's atmosphere. The moon basically doesn't have an atmosphere to move its dust around, the only time that happens is from impacts. >We don't have microwave receptors able to do that Yes in fact we do and we have for a long time, lunar solar power proposals were developed to make use of technology from the '70s. >>748696 >radiations don't go straight in inhomogeneous atmospheres Microwave band penetrates cloud cover, that's the whole point.
>>748700 >>748694 bud if you're going to throw out bait at least put some effort into it. like incorporate something that plays into lefypol's sectarianism. try saying something about china being imperialist, or bring up bookchin
>>748700 How a one world government would solve climate change? How would it even work? Does all the countries of the world have the same minimum wages? Does all laws have to be written in 200 languages? Why would the house of Saud accept to join and share the oil money? Why would China accept to join? How would it deal with separatists? What if all the Indians and Chinese decide to vote for a candidate who want to serve Chinese and Indians at the expenses of everyone else? How would it even work, and how would it solve global warming?
>>748705 >bud if you're going to throw out bait at least put some effort into it. like incorporate something that plays into lefypol's sectarianism. try saying something about china being imperialist, or bring up bookchin >>748709 >What did Sakai think of climate change? Now you're cooking with fire.
>>748704 The problem with all the solar panels is not to make them but to get them on the moon, and to deploy them. Dust move every time something land or take off, and when people walk. >Microwave receptors able to process entire terawatts Wat? >Microwave band penetrates cloud cover, that's the whole point. Yes, but you can't predict where exactly it will land. Since the waves are deadly, and, well, won't help with global warming if it miss the receptor this is a serious issue.
>>748709 He's not a real person, but we can surmise like other branches of the US military the spook agency that constructed him thinks that it can use climate change to enhance US global hegemony in some way.
>>748715 > Please fix this shit. They won't
>>748713 >get them on the moon You're missing the whole point of using the moon in the first place. You make the panels from lunar materials, obviating the need to propel absolutely gigantic amounts of Earth materials to escape Earth's gravity. >Since the waves are deadly Nope, engineers say the most you would feel if standing in one of these large microwave rectenna receivers is a little warm. Although that might be a little optimistic considering the growing evidence of DNA damage due to chronic wifi-band radio exposure. Obviously people won't be living in a rectenna array.
Here's a big long discussion about sustainable energy and the details of lunar solar power with a couple NASA physicists and engineers if you want to learn more. It basically refutes all the common skepticisms of the idea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lA-z-FCDLA
>>748732 Who's gonna pay for it?
>>748728 So, no we need to mine crystalline silicon and to enrich it on the moon. Do you have any idea of all the infrastructure we will need for that? >Trillions of time more powerful than your microwave >Just a bit warm I find that hard to believe. >>748735 So far, the greens have made only less reasonable plans that require trillions of $ https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/how-much-would-it-cost-to-stop-climate-change-it-s-a-staggering-amount-20191025-p5344h.html No one ever ask this horrible question.
>>748735 Who pays over $700 billion for the US military annually, a trillion for a jet that can't fly in the rain, another trillion to upgrade nuclear weapons, and several trillions more to bail out banks? The price tag to replace the entire US electric infrastructure with lunar solar power is $1 trillion over 10-15 years. No other sustainable energy solution comes even close to the projected cheapness of lunar solar power.
PLANT MARIJUANA IN YOUR LOCAL GOLF RESORT, PLANT PSILOCYBE SPORES IN YOUR LOCAL WALMART MULCH GARDENS, PLANT KUDZU ON YOUR LOCAL SKYSCRAPER
>>748748 MIC makes money because it furthers the US imperialist cause. Lunar Solar Power doesn't because it erodes imperialism.
>>748265 >>748399 pls try to understand that the crisis is not only or even mainly about temperatures. it's not even mainly about greenhouse gases and climate change. thx
>>748750 >PLANT PSILOCYBE SPORES IN YOUR LOCAL WALMART MULCH GARDENS >20$ per syringe You're a generous guy. Mail me some and I'll do it for you.
>>748745 >Do you have any idea of all the infrastructure we will need for that? Not as much as you might think. Again I need to point out that lunar photovoltaics can be massively simpler than Earth-based panels because they don't have to deal with an atmosphere. >I find that hard to believe. The number given is "microwave beaming at about 10% the intensity of the sun".
>>748748 > The price tag to replace the entire US electric infrastructure with lunar solar power is $1 trillion over 10-15 years. >US >Not the world See the problem?
>>748757 >pls try to understand that the crisis is not only or even mainly about temperatures. it's not even mainly about greenhouse gases and climate change. thx So what's it mainly about? Transition to 4D?
>>748764 Another $1 trillion is the figure for the rest of the world after that (factoring cost reductions after infrastructure is all in place).
>>748763 >The number given is "microwave beaming at about 10% the intensity of the sun". The point of the whole thing is to collect large surface of solar power and to concentrate it on the small surface of the receptor. How large your receptors will be?
>>748759 >imagine not making your own spore syringes with your own mushroom farm
>>748766 the carrying capacity of the planet. we are dependent on multiple interacting systems, fossil fuels have enabled us to exploit natural resources and planetary systems much faster and harder than ever before. we are straining many of them to close to breaking point. which one will fail first, or how that will affect the others isn't known but unfortunately we are probably going to find out.
(1.61 MB 640x6261 11218[1].jpg)
>>748767 How do you get the trillion price tag? Asking for a friend. The workers alone would cost more.
>>748782 Thousands of F-35 fighters or 24 people on the moon? I'd pick the fighters thanks.
>>748782 Is this an ad?
>>748770 >imagine not making your own spore syringes with your own mushroom farm I'm not into mushroom growing. But let's say you started from one syringe. How many syringes can you make with the yield of that first syringe?
>>748781 "carrying capacity" is unscientific horseshit which has been repeatedly debunked and disproven. The entire concept told us we would be starved by 2000 and the neo-Malthusians would become our rightful overlords. Don't get your science from the fucking Club of Rome.
>>748792 It will be more useful when China start WWIII.
>>748782 It's right back here if you actually bothered to listen to it >>748659
>>748782 >The workers alone would cost more. Evidently not according to your image. Do you even read?
>>748834 $57.8 billion is the price tag for one people.
>>748809 Realistically you could make one syringe with each mushroom fruit. They spread spores in units of one, unless the mushrooms tend to grow in clusters, in which case each individual mushroom is likely too small to make a syringe.
>>748705 >>748819 I knew you had it in you!
>>748842 And for only one year. Of course, this is ignoring the fact that you can hardly get a man on the moon for an entire year just like that.
Things that aren't real: Anime Mushrooms Climate change
>>735901 >a social system that doesn't require literal endless exponential growth USSR was about growth. In the 60s, even some americans feared that it could exceed them in growth. >and abandons the profit motive, allowing us to allocate social resources to repairing environmental damage without requiring more production elsewhere Ok, you can have growth without profit motive. From where are the extra resources going to be taken? If you have a zero growth policy, you must be able to manage the economy even better than planned economy that allows growth. And if there's no incentive to effectivize where it can be effectivized, then the ROI won't matter. So instead of letting every kind of production be subject to a potentional effectivizing, you will only have stagnation. The solution will probably be some kind of mix. Part 5-year plans and part someone making a nice profit on some way to desalin sea water.
>>748812 it absolutely is not. malthus's specific point was inaccurate, but it has no relevance whatsoever to the general concept of carrying capacity.
>>748812 Ecologist here, carrying capacity is very real. Stop getting your science from contrarian youtubers.
>>749022 Growth and sustainability should be coupled together. Growth shouldn't exceed carrying capacity. Carrying capacity can only be overcome through acquisition of new lands and resources. New land and resources can only be acquired through space colonization. Space colonization can only be achieved through sustainable growth.
>>749566(me) Also this is a good rule of thumb for any species. The idea that humans are to puny to impact the environment is ridiculous. Considering plant based life caused a mass global extinction event. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
>>749559 Malthus' point was accurate for a species largely limited to its own labor for getting resources to survive, that is, 99.999% of species that have ever existed. Malthusian cycles and catastrophes are absolutely a thing that is observed in other species. Humans are primarily different in our capacity to develop technology.
>>749022 The USSR was also powerhousing out of being a backwards as hell pre-industrial hellhole. Other countries will also require considerable growth that will have to come from somewhere. There's other forms of growth and development that aren't just pulling resources out of the earth and adding them to society.Developing collectivization and improving access to already existing assets effectively adds to people's consumption capacity without significantly adding to the demand for production. There's also the fact that vast amounts of material are ripe to be recycled but simply aren't under capitalism because it's often cheaper to simply extract raw resources on lines already designed for that. Obviously there will still be some amount of growth and development, there is not a necessity for maintaining zero-growth all the time. The important point is that we can do it in a sane, safe, and reasoned manner, instead of the utter chaos of capitalist forced development at all costs.
>>749686 well, he was specifically applying it to humans. there's a case to be made that we aren't actually different at all and our capacity to develop technology is mostly a short-term, one-time boost that depends entirely on fossil fuels, kind of like a new habitat or niche opening up for a species, the growth potential of which is then exhausted within a couple generations, leading to a crash, if the growth was unsustainable. i don't believe this is a truly existing limitation; technology could actually make a difference. but so far we've done literally nothing to suggest this isn't exactly what's going to happen, or that we're capable of using technology intelligently to engineer stability and sustainability for ourselves. the reality is we're headed for a major population shock, and given how badly we've wrecked the very specific kind of environment we depend on, and the timescales involved in the natural environment restabilising itself after disruption, we're not likely to survive as a species long enough to ever recover from it. we might have another hundred thousand years with population levels and living conditions considerably lower than in the prehistoric era before there's a new dynamically stable ecological state that would enable us to rebuild civilization, and then quietly go extinct like we almost did so many times back then, and like our cousin species did, having lost the knowledge and goal of civilization thousands of generations ago.
bad enough that you can't be redpilled on it. there are only blue and black pills.
>>749806 I think technological development is more of a way out than a lot of people want to give it credit for. Vastly increasing recycling programs, measures taken to increase rates of reforestation and species recovery, and even measures as exotic as albedo manipulation are not off the table. We could probably save a lot of polar ice by simply introducing reflective/emissive panels for the sake of rejecting heat. There are a great many options that aren't explored not because they are not useful but because they're not monetarily profitable.
(252.54 KB 894x1138 (you).png)
>>749845 even if that would be exactly what i looked like while typing it, doesn't mean i'm not right.
>>749590 People ITT would retardedly argue that plant-life causing extinction-level climate change events means this process is natural and therefore it is not so bad that humans have done the same in a fraction of the time. Truly retarded, perhaps we deserve to die?
>>749842 >>749842 If the whole labor force of mankind were turned to a comprehensive plan to solve this crisis we could save the world and maybe one day create a paradise on Earth
>>749881 We do but we won't.
>>749842 >I think technological development is more of a way out than a lot of people want to give it credit for. who exactly? that technology will somehow save us without fundamental societal change seems to me to be the mainstream position, along with denialism. the people rejecting that narrative don't think technology, especially in the less usual, more broad meaning of the term, isn't a part of the solution. reforestation isn't generally seen as a technological solution but an ecological one, but even beyond that, agricultural reform and other such manipulations are considered societal and ecological than technological. even recycling isn't seen as a technological fix, even though making it work will require tons of research and new technology. i don't think ice sheets aren't being covered because there's no money in it. the relatively few people who take the problem seriously aren't motivated by money. i think it more likely that they correctly estimate that advocating for such interventions is a strategic dead end. they can only buy time, which is desperately needed, but completely pointless in isolation, and can even be counterproductive, given that the biggest problem rn is that people are acting like frogs in a kettle. if credible geoengineering projects like covering ice sheets were constantly appearing here and there, if there was a whole ecosystem of them, they might have the potential to help without doing critical damage. but a couple projects in isolation are only going to offer reassurance and distraction to a certain type of person who might otherwise be serious. there's also the context of a long line of greenwashing scams.
>>749881 no one deserves to die and have everyone they love die for being stupid.
>>749906 If we don't purge the world of stupidity we won't ever get a productive society.
>>749881 I have long lost any tears for humanity’s future. You fucking brainlets are virus with shoes that deserves what’s coming.
>>750212 if you think the most important goal of a society is to be productive and that people can be made less dumb through purges, start with yourself. you are engaging in very simplistic, emotional and gullible reasoning.
>>750223 Kill or sterilize people with low IQ. High IQ people remain. Average IQ go up. If you can't understand that, you are just too dumb and we don't want you in our ideology. Get the fuck out.
>>750235 >Kill or sterilize people with low IQ. >destroy lower-level workforce Just educate people for christ's sake, China did it and guess what, their average iq got up.
>>750240 Education doesn't raise IQ, which is genetically inherent
>>749899 Another issue that that talking about measures to save say specifically the arctic or the amazon right now is like talking about installing smoke detectors in a house that 3/4ths of the way burned down, there's no point as both systems have entered death spirals and like you said, individual actions like that don't mean anything without the broad global systemic changes
>>750245 nope, that's called pseudo-science
why was this bumplocked
>>750249 If education has an impact on IQ, why haven't more countries heavily invested in education?
>>750252 We already have 500 posts
>>750253 ....because most can't? Most socialist countries have and do, but capitalist countries don't. You know why? Because lower-iq people make better wageslaves
It isn't going to destroy civilization or humanity but it'd be nice to have commusocialism now instead of trying to do it in blade runner 2049
>>750253 Because it's a meaningless number nobody gives a shit abuot a part from /pol/yps?
>>750257 >Because lower-iq people make better wageslaves
>>750282 >intelligence >meaningless Spoken like a true brainlet
>>749806 I think the climate collapse will be akin to the bronze age collapse. Won't be the end of humanity but a huge set back. Billions are going to die and what remains of humanity will be clinging to the artic circle. Technology won't be entirely lost due to literacy rates being much higher.
>>750245 not even the most blatant pseudoscientist would claim that, dumbo charles murray would not claim that
>>750647 after the bronze age collapse humanity was infinitely better off than it will be if we can't prevent the collapse. we had a whole unpolluted planet's worth of pristine, stable ecosystems to fall back on.
>>749718 >The USSR was also powerhousing out of being a backwards as hell pre-industrial hellhole. Other countries will also require considerable growth that will have to come from somewhere. True. But their mistake was that they didn't switch to consumer products. >There's other forms of growth and development that aren't just pulling resources out of the earth and adding them to society.Developing collectivization and improving access to already existing assets effectively adds to people's consumption capacity without significantly adding to the demand for production. Regarding collectivization: The important questions are what and how deep? Because mining and steel production isn't sensitive to economic plans. It's basically a bunch of STEM-problems. Agriculture is a totally different thing, as it relies on tacit and knowledge. Just the different soils can you devote entire libraries to. And still not say the last word. A good grazing field for sheep and goat such as steep rolling hills may not be suitable for cows, as they may break their legs there. Optimize farming is something that should be done in concert with the farmers and play to their vested long-term interests. >There's also the fact that vast amounts of material are ripe to be recycled but simply aren't under capitalism because it's often cheaper to simply extract raw resources on lines already designed for that. Obviously there will still be some amount of growth and development, there is not a necessity for maintaining zero-growth all the time. The important point is that we can do it in a sane, safe, and reasoned manner, instead of the utter chaos of capitalist forced development at all costs. Yeah, a lot of things are impossible to repair by yourself and so on. But there's plenty of branches where the state intervention regarding the goods-as-such are a bare minimum. Consider synths. There's the voluntary MIDI-standard. And then there's general standards such as conforming to the electric mains, general consumer protection and pattern protection. Disregarding this, synts doesn't exists as any state is concerned. And the second hand value of them are often so high and the second hand market so vibrant that by itself it is a safeguard against waste.
>>755823 >But there's plenty of branches where the state intervention regarding the goods-as-such are a bare minimum. Come to think of it; when CFC:s was phased out, the refrigerators etc started to exist as far as the state was concerned. But only in a negative way. They should *not* use CFC:s.
>>750800 >after the bronze age collapse humanity was infinitely better off than it will be if we can't prevent the collapse. we had a whole unpolluted planet's worth of pristine, stable ecosystems to fall back on. Does anyone have any data on the demographics, if there was a drop in population? Has anyone seen these vids? Check out the comment for film #4. https://www.youtube.com/extracredits/search?query=bronze+age+clllapse

Delete
Report

no cookies?