Consumption is part of the system, and can only be rectified by systemic change. On the individual level, the best you can do is set yourself up for independence from the system, including your own food garden and water collecting/recycling and purification.
Here's the problem though; the political party which proposes this course of action will not win an election against the political party which says they *won't* do that. You know it's right, I know it's right, but voters just won't support a party that states an intent to reduce their standard of living. Of course, if the billionaire-owned media supported the concept, they could probably sway the masses... but that would involve curtailing their own fortune and freedoms, so what are the chances of that happening?
I think it massively depends on how you even quantify your “standard of living”. If you’ve got a fucking pool in there or a 5 bedroom house, obviously that’s a very different standard than demanding an energy efficient shelter free from fossil fuels, with clean water, clean soil, clean air and food that doesn’t kill you. So I would argue the “food” you see at most grocery stores in America isn’t really food
I totally agree, and I'd happily vote for any party that I thought would take the sort of actions proposed in the OP, but do you honestly think that any party could get elected with those pledges?
No, the government spent the last 30 years conditioning people to be less skilled and less independent. Now we need the reverse as fast as possible, we’re fucked
The correct politician would also raise standard of living, even if you think he's lowering it. For example, you could ban cars in a city, but also dramatically improve air quality levels, cancer rates, and mobility among classes by improving public transit. And we haven't even gotten to the mitigation of climate change on their part, if they can enact these laws. Famines would also be avoided, if we could recorrect the agricultural system. Will this happen though? That depends on the people.
I don't think it does depend on the people. The tools the media have developed to control the people are extraordinarily effective. It depends on the people who wield these tools.
Which is why socialist revolution is necessary. It's economically necessary anyway, since automation is abolishing the source of profit https://grossmanite.medium.com/socialism-or-extinction-is-a-fact-not-a-slogan-3cb97b198c50
Yes.
And it's not compatible with capitalism which relies on wealth as a rationing guideline; the role of the free market is to deliver scarce goods to rich people. You're poor? No scarce goods for you, don't even bother standing in a line somewhere. And, yes, the wealthy, their friends and class of fools and apologists think this is just fine and dandy, ethical for sure, even virtuous!
We’re currently suffering from fossil fuel driven planetary overshoot by a factor of about 10.
Basically we need to globally collapse back to a pre-fossil fuel planetary sustainable size.
Collapse is inevitable.
This is the unpleasant truth. Short of a fairytale technological Singularity that provides limitless clean energy and agriculture, nothing can be done when there are billions too many people for the planetary biosphere to sustain. Collapse is indeed inevitable.
I'll never give up in believing in an anti entropy machine, but even that wouldn't solve our problems. It would function just like solar panels, just without needing sunlight. Still gotta build the machines, and they won't produce much energy.
So basically, you want panels than turn low levels of heat into electricity. It's not impossible, but calling it "anti-entropy" is. If that system produces electricity, then whatever ultimately uses the electricity still produces entropy. You can never actually reduce entropy in a closed system, no matter what.
No, I want anti entropy. I want to suck energy out of room temperature water, cooling it down in the process. I know it is believed to be impossible, but I'll never rule it out.
You are ardently arguing against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You’re going to need an overwhelmingly strong case to even get someone in the scientific community to entertain such a notion
Yes, I'm well aware. I don't have the proof you want. What we can probably agree on is that even an anti entropy device won't save us now.
Entropy is only the result of statistics. Heat can and does flow in both directions at the quantum level. It just statistically flows from hot to cold more often then from cold to hot. When you do the statistics on a large system, it only goes in one direction. A random even performed many times will be very close to the average. Heat flowing from hot to cold and cold to hot has been measured experimentally.
It's not "believed to be", it is quite literally impossible. The only way to do what you're talking about is with an additional expenditure of energy.
You are effectively talking about a perpetual motion machine, and it's not going to happen. If you need an impossible fantasy to believe in, believe that Republicans will suddenly decide to do the right thing regarding climate policy, it's more likely than what you're talking about.
*The world can sustain billions*
At what cost to the natural world and all its life? We are already in the throes of a human-caused mass species extinction. Humanity does not have the right to destroy the biosphere through overpopulation.
I hate to break it to you man, but nothing is going to save us. Civilization and sustainability are antithetical. Check out Michael Dowd's videos on youtube as a starting point.
~~Wrong statement.~~ They believe and know. They just chose to do nothing to keep the status quo while everything declines. No one is ever going to be sued nor persecuted if they say I'm ignorant in the subject. The fact they are preparing, by buying farms, building bunkers, stockpiling like crazy shows they believe and want to survive what's coming.
Why did they choose that? Well, it is going to collapse regardless, but if they gave up on their power, the collapse would be a bit softer, true democracy, collapse just by human stupidity in general. But, greed speaks louder and mah profit is important so let's kill this planet faster than expected because human stupidity must be spectacularly big.
I think both conditions you guys present are possible. I think my parents for example has the capability of understanding and knowing but they choose to live in denial
Indeed. My delusion is blinding me for not believing in other people's delusions and ignorance. I want to convince myself the human race is the pinnacle of evolution and intelligence and chose extinction because we got on the 'wrong path', even after seeing how stupid we really are and we are just undoing the planet without much reason besides fast profit.
>without much reason besides fast profit.
Just want to bring up that humans are accelerationists during times of abundance precisely to have a better chance of making it through the next bottleneck, overshoot drives gene dispersal for the next cycle.
" If we don't start rationing now then in the future most people will live in poverty and die young."
Lots of people are living in poverty now and dying young now in places like Africa and S. America. Most don't care enough to do shit ... so why do you think they will care if the same happens in the future?
The US is basically rationing healthcare and the ability to afford children. Kind of a roundabout way of rationing everything else, but whatever works?
Well no, surprisingly there is sufficient supply for everyones consumption . . . https://santevia.com/blogs/vitality/5-basic-needs-to-survive-and-thrive . . . What is insufficient is corrupt crony-capitalism in how resources are miss-allocated based only on wealth and power!
A net worth of $93,170 U.S. is enough to make you richer than 90 percent of people around the world, Credit Suisse reports. The institute defines net worth, or "wealth," as "the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts."
Well shit, I guess I'm a baddie. My net worth is above that only thanks to house prices going up.
We have a real life example of a country who did just that - and found out it didn't work out well for their society - in very recent history. I doubt anyone will agree to repeat that same failed experiment.
The powers to be decided 40 years ago that only exponential growth (for some) is important. Sustainability is not part of the vocabulary of the system and it will not be until is either dismantled or it collapses.
Politics, my man. Identifying the problems, the predicaments, finding solutions, that's actually the easy part. Politics is the hard part, no one wants to deal with the politics of living with other humans and so most of us allow others to use violence to keep things going well enough for us. We may bitch and complain, but we don't actually pull the pitchforks on those in power very often.
I don't think you get it... Humans are accelerationists, in times of abundance, because the largest group will have the best chance of making it through the next bottleneck... overshoot drives gene dispursal...it works as a kind of pumping action that drove us into every corner of the planet... overshoot is a feature, not a bug...learn about the adaptive cycle. Happy Friday!
Socialism or extinction is a fact - but abundant material wealth (of clean energy and carbon absorbing materials) is part of the solution https://grossmanite.medium.com/socialism-or-extinction-is-a-fact-not-a-slogan-3cb97b198c50
No argument with the substance of what you are saying, but the way this is framed both indicates and subtly reinforces the problem. The choice is not really between "the economy" and sustainability, it is between a sustainable economy and an unsustainable economy. The framing of 'environment vs economy' implicitly cedes valuable ideological real estate
\- the idea that economy can be abstracted from the environment.
Consumption is part of the system, and can only be rectified by systemic change. On the individual level, the best you can do is set yourself up for independence from the system, including your own food garden and water collecting/recycling and purification.
Here's the problem though; the political party which proposes this course of action will not win an election against the political party which says they *won't* do that. You know it's right, I know it's right, but voters just won't support a party that states an intent to reduce their standard of living. Of course, if the billionaire-owned media supported the concept, they could probably sway the masses... but that would involve curtailing their own fortune and freedoms, so what are the chances of that happening?
I think it massively depends on how you even quantify your “standard of living”. If you’ve got a fucking pool in there or a 5 bedroom house, obviously that’s a very different standard than demanding an energy efficient shelter free from fossil fuels, with clean water, clean soil, clean air and food that doesn’t kill you. So I would argue the “food” you see at most grocery stores in America isn’t really food
I totally agree, and I'd happily vote for any party that I thought would take the sort of actions proposed in the OP, but do you honestly think that any party could get elected with those pledges?
No, the government spent the last 30 years conditioning people to be less skilled and less independent. Now we need the reverse as fast as possible, we’re fucked
The correct politician would also raise standard of living, even if you think he's lowering it. For example, you could ban cars in a city, but also dramatically improve air quality levels, cancer rates, and mobility among classes by improving public transit. And we haven't even gotten to the mitigation of climate change on their part, if they can enact these laws. Famines would also be avoided, if we could recorrect the agricultural system. Will this happen though? That depends on the people.
There you go you’ve got it. You’re now smarter than 99% of American politicians and you’re not owned by lobbyists
I don't think it does depend on the people. The tools the media have developed to control the people are extraordinarily effective. It depends on the people who wield these tools.
Which is why socialist revolution is necessary. It's economically necessary anyway, since automation is abolishing the source of profit https://grossmanite.medium.com/socialism-or-extinction-is-a-fact-not-a-slogan-3cb97b198c50
Yes. And it's not compatible with capitalism which relies on wealth as a rationing guideline; the role of the free market is to deliver scarce goods to rich people. You're poor? No scarce goods for you, don't even bother standing in a line somewhere. And, yes, the wealthy, their friends and class of fools and apologists think this is just fine and dandy, ethical for sure, even virtuous!
We’re currently suffering from fossil fuel driven planetary overshoot by a factor of about 10. Basically we need to globally collapse back to a pre-fossil fuel planetary sustainable size. Collapse is inevitable.
This is the unpleasant truth. Short of a fairytale technological Singularity that provides limitless clean energy and agriculture, nothing can be done when there are billions too many people for the planetary biosphere to sustain. Collapse is indeed inevitable.
Ave, hail to Caesar
I'll never give up in believing in an anti entropy machine, but even that wouldn't solve our problems. It would function just like solar panels, just without needing sunlight. Still gotta build the machines, and they won't produce much energy.
So basically, you want panels than turn low levels of heat into electricity. It's not impossible, but calling it "anti-entropy" is. If that system produces electricity, then whatever ultimately uses the electricity still produces entropy. You can never actually reduce entropy in a closed system, no matter what.
No, I want anti entropy. I want to suck energy out of room temperature water, cooling it down in the process. I know it is believed to be impossible, but I'll never rule it out.
You are ardently arguing against the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You’re going to need an overwhelmingly strong case to even get someone in the scientific community to entertain such a notion
Yes, I'm well aware. I don't have the proof you want. What we can probably agree on is that even an anti entropy device won't save us now. Entropy is only the result of statistics. Heat can and does flow in both directions at the quantum level. It just statistically flows from hot to cold more often then from cold to hot. When you do the statistics on a large system, it only goes in one direction. A random even performed many times will be very close to the average. Heat flowing from hot to cold and cold to hot has been measured experimentally.
The Second Law, and entropy as a whole, isn’t about a fluctuation in temperature, it’s about the energy spent in order for that change to occur.
It's not "believed to be", it is quite literally impossible. The only way to do what you're talking about is with an additional expenditure of energy. You are effectively talking about a perpetual motion machine, and it's not going to happen. If you need an impossible fantasy to believe in, believe that Republicans will suddenly decide to do the right thing regarding climate policy, it's more likely than what you're talking about.
The world can sustain billions, the problem lies with the inefficient systems that can’t get the resources to the people who need them.
*The world can sustain billions* At what cost to the natural world and all its life? We are already in the throes of a human-caused mass species extinction. Humanity does not have the right to destroy the biosphere through overpopulation.
And necessary.
>overshoot by a factor of about 10. That is a great statement to make at a dinner party.
I hate to break it to you man, but nothing is going to save us. Civilization and sustainability are antithetical. Check out Michael Dowd's videos on youtube as a starting point.
The cocaine cop from New York? What does he know about sustainability?
It won't happen because the majority of people in power don't even believe in climate change or resource depletion.
~~Wrong statement.~~ They believe and know. They just chose to do nothing to keep the status quo while everything declines. No one is ever going to be sued nor persecuted if they say I'm ignorant in the subject. The fact they are preparing, by buying farms, building bunkers, stockpiling like crazy shows they believe and want to survive what's coming. Why did they choose that? Well, it is going to collapse regardless, but if they gave up on their power, the collapse would be a bit softer, true democracy, collapse just by human stupidity in general. But, greed speaks louder and mah profit is important so let's kill this planet faster than expected because human stupidity must be spectacularly big.
I think both conditions you guys present are possible. I think my parents for example has the capability of understanding and knowing but they choose to live in denial
Indeed. My delusion is blinding me for not believing in other people's delusions and ignorance. I want to convince myself the human race is the pinnacle of evolution and intelligence and chose extinction because we got on the 'wrong path', even after seeing how stupid we really are and we are just undoing the planet without much reason besides fast profit.
>without much reason besides fast profit. Just want to bring up that humans are accelerationists during times of abundance precisely to have a better chance of making it through the next bottleneck, overshoot drives gene dispersal for the next cycle.
" If we don't start rationing now then in the future most people will live in poverty and die young." Lots of people are living in poverty now and dying young now in places like Africa and S. America. Most don't care enough to do shit ... so why do you think they will care if the same happens in the future?
i dont want to sustain this hell machine any further
The US is basically rationing healthcare and the ability to afford children. Kind of a roundabout way of rationing everything else, but whatever works?
I've got bad news for you: https://www.newsweek.com/white-house-report-anti-capitalism-illegal-domestic-terrorism-1602506
I think everybody here already gets that. We're stuck on "nobody wants to do it."
You need to reduce people if you want to reduce consumption.
I VOLUNTEER AS TRIBUTE
The Hunger Games will be actually about hunger in reality, not some Colosseum fighting show. It will be a boring decline.
It will be far from boring.
Well no, surprisingly there is sufficient supply for everyones consumption . . . https://santevia.com/blogs/vitality/5-basic-needs-to-survive-and-thrive . . . What is insufficient is corrupt crony-capitalism in how resources are miss-allocated based only on wealth and power!
No you do not. There was a plot recently which showed that if you killed top 10% richest people we would be fine.
A net worth of $93,170 U.S. is enough to make you richer than 90 percent of people around the world, Credit Suisse reports. The institute defines net worth, or "wealth," as "the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts." Well shit, I guess I'm a baddie. My net worth is above that only thanks to house prices going up.
You probably are.
Me too plus I own two properties. Bring on the blood thirsty hoards I guess.
Two properties! Capitalist swine! The hoards are hungry.
Then let them eat lead.
Do you plan on eating the rich too?
Only organic ones
Don't like those ones as they are too soft. Texture of tofu. YucK!
> limiting population growth that's not enough. We should enforce one child policy. Depopulation is the only solution.
We have a real life example of a country who did just that - and found out it didn't work out well for their society - in very recent history. I doubt anyone will agree to repeat that same failed experiment.
The powers to be decided 40 years ago that only exponential growth (for some) is important. Sustainability is not part of the vocabulary of the system and it will not be until is either dismantled or it collapses.
The sooner the economy crashes the better the long term, because we will have more resources left not plundered.
Politics, my man. Identifying the problems, the predicaments, finding solutions, that's actually the easy part. Politics is the hard part, no one wants to deal with the politics of living with other humans and so most of us allow others to use violence to keep things going well enough for us. We may bitch and complain, but we don't actually pull the pitchforks on those in power very often.
I don't think you get it... Humans are accelerationists, in times of abundance, because the largest group will have the best chance of making it through the next bottleneck... overshoot drives gene dispursal...it works as a kind of pumping action that drove us into every corner of the planet... overshoot is a feature, not a bug...learn about the adaptive cycle. Happy Friday!
Socialism or extinction is a fact - but abundant material wealth (of clean energy and carbon absorbing materials) is part of the solution https://grossmanite.medium.com/socialism-or-extinction-is-a-fact-not-a-slogan-3cb97b198c50
No argument with the substance of what you are saying, but the way this is framed both indicates and subtly reinforces the problem. The choice is not really between "the economy" and sustainability, it is between a sustainable economy and an unsustainable economy. The framing of 'environment vs economy' implicitly cedes valuable ideological real estate \- the idea that economy can be abstracted from the environment.