358
Protestation (discuss.tchncs.de)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] NIB@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

Did capitalism destroy this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

The Aral Sea is considered an example of ecosystem collapse.[42] The ecosystems of the Aral Sea and the river deltas feeding into it have been nearly destroyed, largely because of the salinity being dramatically higher than ocean water.[5] The receding sea has left huge plains covered with salt and toxic chemicals from weapons testing, industrial projects, and runoff of pesticides and fertilizer. Because of the shrinking water source and worsening water and soil quality, pesticides were increasingly used from the 1960s to raise cotton yield, which further polluted the water with toxins (e.g. HCH, TCCD, DDT).[43] Industrial pollution also resulted in PCB and heavy-metal contamination

This was the result of this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan_for_the_Transformation_of_Nature

Exploiting nature and fucking things up is not limited to capitalism.

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Plus, animal consumption is among the top three causes of ecological destruction on this planet. Do people think burgers only exist under capitalism? That palm oil and pig meat are an obsession of the super rich? It’s not a matter of efficiency (farming is already absurdly efficient). It’s just math. Like everyone will give up chicken nuggets to save the planet or something? Good luck with that. People are obdurate and gross.

Getting rid of capitalism is a step in the right direction, sure, but unless folks are willing to give up meat, cars, airplanes, and who knows what other amenities, we are still just as fucked.

[-] puntyyoke@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

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

[-] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 2 months ago

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

[-] puntyyoke@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

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

[-] joostjakob@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

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

[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by

  1. the farming of animal products,
  2. the production and consumption of energy, and
  3. the extraction and transformation of material resources,

can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be a vegan who doesn’t take vacations, use air conditioning, fly on airplanes, or drive a car? I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.

Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.

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

[-] onoira@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Given that the environmental depredation of this planet is driven by […] can people explain why they believe that without capitalism

capitalist industry and commerce have been the driving force of the mass extinction of the last 500 years[0][1][2]. climate change didn't begin until the late 1800s with the rise of tycoons, and accelerated with mass production in the mid-1900s.

for a current example: datacentres are wasting entire regional electricity and water supplies on investment grifter bullshit. because it makes money. it doesn't even turn a real profit, and it's not everyday people paying for it.

can people explain why they believe that without capitalism everyone would be […]

could be, not necessarily would. because a humanistic, socialised means of production would: allow for truly 'democratic' control over what is produced; remove nested interests and subsidies to overgrown polluting industries[3]; and make alternatives viable without the need to bend or break to top-down market pressures and monetary policy dictated by dragons.

I also assume they’re wearing hemp and have no interest in fashion.

capitalism has existed for less than 300 years. consumerism has existed for less than 100 years. when you have an economic system which emphasises the independent individual — simultaneously a motivator and a mere cog in the machine — and posits that the mere potential to own things is the source of value: buying wasteful, exotic, unnecessary shit is a way to define yourself and your status. it's called conspicuous consumption, and it happens from the micro to the macro in the lower and the upper classes, and there's top-down pressure to do so to keep currency current.

i recommend the documentary The Century of the Self for an overview of the commodification of identity and culture.

Keep in mind there are 8 billion people on this planet, so presumably they wouldn’t be having children either.

we are already producing enough food to sufficiently feed 1.5x the world population[4], and could continue to do so even within planetary boundaries[5] with changes to economic policy and the adoption of less profitable methods of agriculture.


i didn't cover everything here, because i recommend:

  1. the book Less Is More.
  2. familiarising yourself with the concept of the superstructure; it's a very helpful analytical tool.
  3. going back to the last time you were on your malthusian debatebro bullshit and really trying to engage your imagination with much of the same arguments made there.
[-] yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We don’t produce 1.5 times the food we need, as you said. We produce 100 times the food we need. Know why? To feed the billions of sentient animals that are tortured to death each year in factory abattoirs. Do you have any idea how sustainable that is? It’s not. So…

You’ve taken a roundabout way to tell me that mass adoption of veganism (literally the only way to save the environment) unfortunately has nothing to do with our economic system.

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

They would simply consume less and not be as driven to consume. Capitalism drives up the consumption to ridiculous levels, greed is not actually good. We could focus the economy on needs first and ensure it exists so people can still acquire goods and services in exchange for money so no one is working for nothing. But no more wealth accumulation into the stratosphere. There’s a lot that would need to change

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 months ago

Both can be true.

Capitalism didn't create itself... She's just looking at the root of the problem instead of its effects.

[-] deaf_fish@lemm.ee 19 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I just can't stop pooping out capitalism. It's literally a natural thing that I do. /S

[-] Cagi@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The extinction of animals because of human action predates agriculture. This comic is the middle of the bell curve meme.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

These can exist at the same time. It is not binary.

[-] velox_vulnus@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

I kinda disagree with this. There's too many of us in India. We are replaceable wage-slaves - since we are "resources" in high supply, our demand is less. And therefore, capitalists have a justification to pay us shit wages, because "it's the free market". Maybe if some of us were aborted, we'd have had an assurance to quality life, if not economic growth and technology transfer.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago

capitalists have a justification to pay us shit wages

That's still a capitalism problem. 10 people working produces more than 10x the wealth of 1 person's labor. It's capitalism that causes the uneven distribution of that greater wealth.

[-] PyroNeurosis 3 points 2 months ago

I wanna argue the 10x bit: specialization and organization is a force multiplier in terms of production.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago
[-] DoYouNot@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

[-] ObamaBinLaden@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

So China must be a paragon of eco-friendly, right? Right? Like, you wouldn't place all your bets in a pseudo-imaginary concept that has never been able to materialize and when it does it only seems to favor fascist behavior, right? Right? It must also mean that there aren't capitalist nations the means and innovation for protection of the environment, right? Right? You totally aren't setting yourself up for a scale you will define completely subjectively to suit your point, right? Right?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

So China must be a paragon of eco-friendly, right?

If every country was doing as well as China right now, the world would be a much better place. But the Chinese advantage is largely in its cutting edge industrial capacity. A bit unfair to hold Vietnam or Cuba to the standards of a tech giant.

It must also mean that there aren’t capitalist nations the means and innovation for protection of the environment, right? Right?

Economic central planning that forecasts the consequences of ecological degradation on a 5, 10, and 50 year time horizon will lead administrators to policies that individual businesses fixated on quarterly profits and annual executive compensation packages don't want to embrace.

Past that, a big part of what the Chinese environmentalist project has been about is experimentation. They've done manual reforesting along the Gobi Desert. They've done nuclear energy R&D. They've done carbon capture projects. They've invested enormous sums in their space program.

Most of the western R&D and infrastructure development has been limited by what the O&G industry is willing to directly invest in (carbon capture, converting from coal to nat gas with supplementary wind/solar, carbon credits and other forms of green financialization) all of which are designed to immediately enrich their bottom lines. That's not even considering the deliberate efforts to maximize fossil fuel usage (the Texas ERCOT grid refusing to buy cheap renewable/nuclear power from outside the state, various states threatening to prohibit/tax electric vehicles and renewable energy power systems).

To conclude capitalist rent seeking isn't guiding any of these policies is deeply irrational.

[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

So, is China capitalist? Is it communist? Thank you for your totally not subjective reply.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

So, is China capitalist?

They seem to be employing a central planning model out of a public sector unconcerned with maximizing personal profits. So... No?

Is it communist?

Not yet. They appear to be exploring Socialism, but with a particular set of Chinese Characteristics. I think they're even a book on the subject.

Thank you for your totally not subjective reply.

No problem.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

China is Socialist, in that it's a transitional economy. There's a large and robust Private Sector with strong central planning. It's nowhere near fully Socialized, and nowhere near Communist, but it is a transitional economy.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago
[-] Klear@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Try Eastern Europe then, before the fall of the communist regimes there. The environment got fucked hard by the commies here.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

I wasn't arguing that point. I was saying China's new economy is a form of capitalism. Everyone can fuck things up. Who is the most vested country int he world in renewable/clean energy sources? China.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

This wasn't even true under Dengism, can you seriously look at their percentage of private sector now and say they're capitalist?

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Are they a liberal laissez faire capitalist market? No. However they operate as a capitalist market that is tied to the government. Their special economic zones operate in ways that even places like the US find under regulated. They have people running corporations and making billions in private capital, while investing their capital in shares/futures/etc markets. They are a capitalist country, they are also a dictatorship that ultimately controls everything. These things are not mutually exclusive.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

However they operate as a capitalist market that is tied to the government. Their special economic zones operate in ways that even places like the US find under regulated. They have people running corporations and making billions in private capital, while investing their capital in shares/futures/etc markets.

https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

https://youtu.be/M4__IBd_sGE?si=AQOKB0e9RRIuIxhw

also a dictatorship that ultimately controls everything.

http://us.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgyw/202112/t20211204_10462468.htm

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Ok under the billionaires one it literally says it is mixes private business and capital investment as a venue that makes a strong economy due to pragmatism. They find it pragmatic to be capitalists when they want to make money and increase their capital holdings, because it make the economy better.

Great, ultimately, you get to vote for one party's offerings, and they get that appointment for life, and control a police/surveillance state. Great democracy there. Recently they have purged a lot of high ranking party members, due to graft, making them a paper tiger, of sorts, in a lot of their most important new weapons developments. Not dictatory at all.

Look, person, I do not think China is the big evil, as portrayed by western media. However they are a highly authoritarian police state, with a single party dominance, the head of which is a life time appointment. They also participate in capitalism, not the open, liberal, laissez faire type, but they have a class of capital owners, investing that capital to increase said capital holdings. They just have big brother standing behind them, hand on their shoulder, watching what they are doing.

I also do not like the capital colonialism of the west. If I had to choose to personally live under one, or the other, I would stay where I am, because I am not the personality type to conform, at least publicly, to the legal framework China practices. China is shittier than the west in some ways, and the west is shittier than China in others. Both are surveillance states, China has proven more proactive in targeting people who publicly diverge from their party line. Where I am I can openly say nearly anything about my government, and I won't be forced into a camp, and re-educated. We just have other prison industry issues. I am actually intimately aware of, as I used to do data analysis for the "corrections" system.

Basically, there are no "good guys".

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Honestly at this point it seems like you're not really engaging with the material: your more reasonable concerns are straight up addressed in the material listed.

Where I am I can openly say nearly anything about my government, and I won’t be forced into a camp, and re-educated.

Do you see this as a good thing? I'd rather live in a society that re-educated people who were saying Nazi shit tbh

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I absolutely believe I should be able to say what I will, about my government, without being fucked by the state. The fact that you can not see why that is a better way to live informs me of you authoritarianism. The reasons you should be curtailed are few and far between. Like I understand that if I say I am going to assassinate a poltico, that should be illegal, and things of this nature. Also, being a nazi is a non-sequitur to my statement. That goes far beyond talking shit about your own government. That requires action.

Yeah, I read them, and the way they are addressed doesn't sound good to me. I have read more in-depth pieces discussing the same things. Sorry, I am far too against the type of control they exercise. They practice a hierarchy that is even more rigid than where I am from, so that's not gonna work for me. I am an anti-authoritarian leftist, China does not jive well with me.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

Okay, well your "anti-autboritarian" ideology gets anywhere you'll have my support, until then I'll support socialist projects that actually work within their limitations.

[-] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

And when your authoritarian ideology gets you something, that isn't a brutal police state, you will have my support. Until then I will support progressive movements, and incremental steps away from the right, and dictatorship.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Israel keeps massacring Gazans and yet the carbon emissions of the region aren't falling. I don't understand. I was told it was an overpopulation problem. What else could it be?

[-] Urist@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

ITT: The environmental consequences of precapitalistic modes of production confuse lemmies to defend a nonsense statement in a totally different paradigm.

[-] Nicoleism101@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I don’t even know if I want to argue anymore. Every endangered group needs a sanctuary. It’s like living museum. Curious and fascinating but thankfully with zero power or chance to get it.

Tho commies could clash with the alt right and both disappear while normal ppl live on

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I wish my hair looked like that

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
358 points (100.0% liked)

Communism

1661 readers
32 users here now

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS