That's a good point, but let me offer this as a counterargument: Mammon demands that we offer up the planet and all living species at the sacrificial altar of capitalism and he shall not be denied
It’s a (usually bad) way to make an argument; you stand up a false opponent to argument, but because you’re writing both sides they tend to come around.
You’ll see it a lot in “FAQs” put out by, for example, religiously minded folks “Sinners always ask how Boba Fet got out of the Sarlac pit”
(Answer: he didn’t that’s a Disney myth to sell more merch.)
I think the per-person metric is a poor metric when talking about damaging consumption.
Yes, we can all lower our standards of living in developed countries and also transition to more communal transport and utility systems (you can do this right now, within your means and comfort), but a very large portion (a majority I think, in fact) of the human race have standards of living that arguably are so low that they should be raised.
This metric also completely misses the exponentially higher amount of devastation caused directly from mass production consumerist capitalism. Shifting to economic systems which make only what is reasonable while also not denying those in need would likely be the biggest move towards sustainability.
The per person metric is great! If you are a large corporation and need to shift blame that is.
Yes, extraordinary personal consumption can make things way worse, but lowering your standards can only improve things so much until you hit the limit. imho the solution lies in using the resources we have more efficiently, so that people can sustain and improve their living conditions, while greatly reducing the ecological burden. If you demand that people shall lower their standards for the greater good, it will work about as good as telling them to wear a mask during a respiratory pandemic.
Isn't that exactly what is said? The growth of people x consumption is finite and there needs to be a system change to represent that. It does not specify how the factors are balanced in relation to each other.
You guys heard of this new one, the growing earth theory? Kinda like flat earth people, these ones believe that the earth is growing from inside and the land mass is expanding but the government, for some reason doesn't want us to know! Lol
Because most people just want to live, and not rule. Those that want to rule are not good people. And the authoritarian hierarchy we live under will always have the money, will, and means to hinder any progress made by the majority of the population that just wants to live.
I wonder if anywhere in the universe some civilization decided that it's against their interests to progress through industrial stage because of the environmental impact.
The "dao", which is the thing that you want to protect. For example your house, your family.
The work that you have to do to fulfill your protection. Like, necessary maintenance on the house, bringing food on the table, caring for your family.
Finally, it is the interaction with the environment. Because your house isn't the only object in the world, and sooner or later you have to talk to your neighbors.
I agree that the wikipedia article doesn't really discuss that, and I guess that there's different interpretations of the dharma, just like there's different interpretations of christianity. But that's how a friend explained it to me, and it makes total sense to me. :-)
Edit: So the connection is, that in the case of the meme, it is the earth that you want to protect. And to do this, you have to take the appropriate actions, like building your infrastructure around renewable energy, and stuff like this.
No, this is really basic anti-capitalist stuff. It's not that deep. Just saying that capitalism relies on economic growth in perpetuity, which is impossible in a finite world.
Why does this discussion immediately turn to culling and eugenics? It’s like you can’t even admit there could be a problem. Fixing it will be hard, but few suggest those steps are the solution. Instead, it starts with realizing everyone can’t have the standard 2.5 kids. We cannot just keep going. Earth is finite and has finite resources. Adding people means less and less is available to everyone else. But people that want a ton of kids hate hearing that. So it becomes solution aversion (if you don’t like a solution, deny there is a problem) and strawmen, like claiming anyone that thinks there is overpopulation wants eugenics.
58 replies
So that's why they shot him
♥️ Harembe
Harambe, Blessed be thy name.
And they hated him, for he spoke the truth.
This is for him. 8=D (I just got out of the pool)
This is for him too. 8=D (I have a micropenis)
That's a good point, but let me offer this as a counterargument: Mammon demands that we offer up the planet and all living species at the sacrificial altar of capitalism and he shall not be denied
Silly person, you know not what you speak.
Truly, the only way to be saved is by the grace of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
MAY YOU BE BLESSED BY HIS NOODLY APPENDAGES ≈°o°≈
R'amen 🙏🍝
BTW, no joke this is a book by Daniel Quinn called 'Ishmael'. Highly recommend
Ishmael looks like a great book. Thanks
lol that’s what I came to say
Super interesting concept, thanks for the book recommendation. Added to my list
I’ll second the book… read it in highschool,
It’s a bit sick-puppet-ish, but it’s still a good read.
"sick-puppet-ish". Haven't heard that one before. Checked urban dictionary but... I'm guessing that's not what you were going for?
Sorry that should have been sock puppet.
It’s a (usually bad) way to make an argument; you stand up a false opponent to argument, but because you’re writing both sides they tend to come around.
You’ll see it a lot in “FAQs” put out by, for example, religiously minded folks “Sinners always ask how Boba Fet got out of the Sarlac pit”
(Answer: he didn’t that’s a Disney myth to sell more merch.)
While this is technically true, we wouldn't be such a strain on the ecosystem if we didn't consume so much per person.
I think the per-person metric is a poor metric when talking about damaging consumption.
Yes, we can all lower our standards of living in developed countries and also transition to more communal transport and utility systems (you can do this right now, within your means and comfort), but a very large portion (a majority I think, in fact) of the human race have standards of living that arguably are so low that they should be raised.
This metric also completely misses the exponentially higher amount of devastation caused directly from mass production consumerist capitalism. Shifting to economic systems which make only what is reasonable while also not denying those in need would likely be the biggest move towards sustainability.
The per person metric is great!
If you are a large corporation and need to shift blame that is.Yes, extraordinary personal consumption can make things way worse, but lowering your standards can only improve things so much until you hit the limit. imho the solution lies in using the resources we have more efficiently, so that people can sustain and improve their living conditions, while greatly reducing the ecological burden. If you demand that people shall lower their standards for the greater good, it will work about as good as telling them to wear a mask during a respiratory pandemic.
I'm not burning down the amazon so I can make more money on palm oil.
There is such a thing as "supply and demand" , but consumerist culture originates from the top, not the bottom.
Isn't that exactly what is said? The growth of people x consumption is finite and there needs to be a system change to represent that. It does not specify how the factors are balanced in relation to each other.
I know. But you are dead, my idol. Dicks out.
Nobody listens to an ape...or Al Gore...or space communists from popular scifi series.
If people knew how dumb they actually are, they wouldn’t be dumb.
Hey. You just invented measurable treshhold for stupid.
I waited 4 days for this and it was worth it.
Yeah. Got a new phone and I was little lazy setting it up.
I can’t upgrade my Jitterbug.
My phone old was 7 years old and the battery finally gave out.
Ishmael
You guys heard of this new one, the growing earth theory? Kinda like flat earth people, these ones believe that the earth is growing from inside and the land mass is expanding but the government, for some reason doesn't want us to know! Lol
finally, fat earth theory
Sounds like the expansion of space but much cooler, where do I sign up?
Want that one of the theories that came when early mapping showed the shapes of the continents?
If communism was so good, why didn't they win the Cold War 🤐🤐
/s lol
Because most people just want to live, and not rule. Those that want to rule are not good people. And the authoritarian hierarchy we live under will always have the money, will, and means to hinder any progress made by the majority of the population that just wants to live.
The Peter Principle means they're incompetent, not bad guys. You're thinking of Plato's "philosopher kings".
Not philosopher kings. I think being a bad guy displays incompetency. And our system incentivizes sociopathy throughout the strata of hierarchy.
the gorilla isn't wrong
smart monke
I wonder if anywhere in the universe some civilization decided that it's against their interests to progress through industrial stage because of the environmental impact.
Or take it slower and work past the hurdles
really we've been able to do so for decades now, the solutions have been present since the invention of the electic motor basically.
the only reason we still burn so much fossil fuel is because it makes rich people even richer.
The dharma concept deals with also this.
How? I read the wiki and do not see the connection.
To me it was explained in the following way:
The dharma consists of three parts:
The "dao", which is the thing that you want to protect. For example your house, your family.
The work that you have to do to fulfill your protection. Like, necessary maintenance on the house, bringing food on the table, caring for your family.
Finally, it is the interaction with the environment. Because your house isn't the only object in the world, and sooner or later you have to talk to your neighbors.
I agree that the wikipedia article doesn't really discuss that, and I guess that there's different interpretations of the dharma, just like there's different interpretations of christianity. But that's how a friend explained it to me, and it makes total sense to me. :-)
Edit: So the connection is, that in the case of the meme, it is the earth that you want to protect. And to do this, you have to take the appropriate actions, like building your infrastructure around renewable energy, and stuff like this.
I want my country to economically develop and lift people out of poverty, thanks.
That's a nice coastline you've got there. It would be a shame if something more expensive than Pigouvian taxes happened to it.
Bongo has got a point.
meanwhile the Chinese are trying to empty the oceans of fish
Sensing motive: "Damn, I'm pretty sure that this wannabe capitalist is either a troll or a bot."
Edit: "oh look, I rolled a 20."
No, this is really basic anti-capitalist stuff. It's not that deep. Just saying that capitalism relies on economic growth in perpetuity, which is impossible in a finite world.
Why does this discussion immediately turn to culling and eugenics? It’s like you can’t even admit there could be a problem. Fixing it will be hard, but few suggest those steps are the solution. Instead, it starts with realizing everyone can’t have the standard 2.5 kids. We cannot just keep going. Earth is finite and has finite resources. Adding people means less and less is available to everyone else. But people that want a ton of kids hate hearing that. So it becomes solution aversion (if you don’t like a solution, deny there is a problem) and strawmen, like claiming anyone that thinks there is overpopulation wants eugenics.
It's because they listen to Alex Jones. Everything they said is an InfoWars talking point.
Thanks for regurgitating InfoWars talking points. Alex Jones would be proud.
I think the only eugenics we need to perform is on InfoWars listeners. Could you imagine it?
Do you have an alternative solution? And what would you propose as a reasonable population cap? 10 billion? 100 billion? 100 trillion?