20
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
20 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
40532 readers
120 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
@yogthos@lemmy.ml There was absolutely no difference in the technocratic Soviet Union either. It was all based on energy economy and once the Soviet Union peaked everything went downhill and it crashed. And you know, my grandfather built those computers and my grandmother programmed them and my mother programmed them. The ones in the Soviet Union that managed the five-year plan. Obviously on a team of people, we weren't the only ones. So, you know, I have vested interest in it having worked, but the energy is what matters and it's distributism that saves the day. China is more distributed than almost any other modern nation. I think India probably is one of the few that has more land distribution. And basically the more land distribution the higher the survival chances once the fossil fuels go away. In the West it's looking since only 1 to 3% of people only land that they can grow food on maybe only 5% will survive.
Having grown up in USSR, I know there was in fact a huge difference. The economy wasn't structured around consumption, goods were built to last. People weren't spending their time constantly shopping and consuming things. The idea that USSR was destined to collapse is also pure nonsense. There were plenty of different ways it could've developed. USSR certainly didn't collapse because it was running out of energy.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml Here you can see the attached image. Gorbachev and Yeltsin were the result of the oil decline.
Again, I'm explaining to you that society is a conscious and intentional construct that we make. USSR could have made changes in a similar way China did to move in a different direction. As your own chart shows, there was no shortage of energy as output rebounded. The problems were political and with the nature of the way the economy was structured.
@yogthos@lemmy.ml Running out of energy is what was making everything fall apart. When the energy was growing, any kind of gap could be filled with more energy. But after it started declining, the gaps just got bigger. Yeah, they could have decided to become compassionate and think about how to live in a lower energy world, but they refused. And so the collapse, it was a combination of geopolitical factors, but it was also a refusal to adapt. China is smart. They have a very big rural promotion program. They can tell when someone is smart and knows what they're talking about. I meet with the leading scientists on energy and resources around the world every month. You can check out the YouTube channel of my name if you want.
Except USSR didn't run out of energy.