this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2121 points (94.3% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2657 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13esq@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it's fine to think of it as imperfect, even if those imperfections can never be truly solved.

We only need nuclear to bridge the gap between now and a time when renewable CO2 neutral power sources or the holy grail of fusion are able to take the place the base load power that we currently use fossil fuels for, and with hope, that may only be a few decades away.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Degrowth is the only realistic solution.

Anybody who thinks humans and civiilization will exist in 200 years without degrowth is living in a fantasy world. We can't solve our problems of fossil fuel dependence and an ever-growing population with recycling, denser housing, and nuclear power. Nature needs space, not everyone wants to live like a sardine in a dense city.

Where will we get our nitrogen fertilizer at massive scale w/o fossil sources?

Use of fossils are the only reason humanity was able to grow way outside the bounds of normal Earth capacity. Without fossils we'll be forced into a sustainable relationship with our planet and that probably isn't 8 billion or more people living in "civilized society" regardless of it's efficiency.

And no, I"m not an "eco-fascist" and don't want genocide or want poor people or brown people to disappear, don't fall into false dichotomies.

[–] Zink@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

The estimates I’ve seen project the world population will hit a peak before long, and gradually decline. It’s because of birth rates declining as development/education/wealth rise in a region.

Plus looking that far ahead, humans will probably have technologies that we today don’t even know are possible. If we had all the energy and high tech new materials we needed, many more options become possible.

[–] Harrison@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Eco-fascist outcomes come from Eco-fascist methods. How do you propose to accomplish this degrowth without subjecting the world's population to genocide and privation?

Human nature is to strive, to fight for a better life for themselves and their communities. The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and "harmony with the planet" a bunch of backwards romantics push is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it.

If people need to live in dense cities, then they will live in dense cities.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

8 billion plus humans are not sustainable on Earth regardless of how efficient our electrical production is, how cool Tesla's cars are, or how many people go vegan. Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don't do it. Nature will not be so kind.

How do you propose to accomplish this degrowth without subjecting the world’s population to genocide and privation?

  • Education
  • Opportunity
  • Help those who don't want to give birth not to give birth
  • Reduce the influence of religion that promotes childbirth and irresponsible family planning
  • Reduce the influence of pressure to grow in every way that is likely exacerbated by capitalism

I find it funny that those who immediately go to genocide are the ones implying I have the sick mind.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don’t do it.

Are you proposing that we do it? How exactly does reducing the number of humans work, if we do it? Is there any word for this that isn’t “genocide”?

[–] Harrison@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 year ago

8 billion people is absolutely sustainable, we could support significantly more at a modern standard of living with just the resources we use today. The problem is the way we organise how and where we live, and a parasitic owner class using and abusing vastly more resources than they could ever need.

  • Education
  • Opportunity
  • Help those who don't want to give birth not to give birth
  • Reduce the influence of religion that promotes childbirth and irresponsible family planning
  • Reduce the influence of pressure to grow in every way that is likely exacerbated by capitalism

And if after all that people still want to have children?

Nature will bring our numbers to sustainable levels if we don't do it. Nature will not be so kind.

Let it try, we'll see who wins.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

who do you educate? those people will be genocided.

who do you give birth control to? those people will be genocided.

there is no policy you can create and implement that will not disproportionately effect one group over another.

it's all genocide.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Pretty straightforward. It’s disturbing how hard it is to get people to recognize that reducing human population through human effort is genocide.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

genocide and privation

It's opposite of degrowth. It is capitalism with its wide beastly grin.

The preservation of agrarian lifestyles and "harmony with the planet"

I like how you mix it togerher under pro-nuclear thread about combating climate change. Also it says you didn't research what degrowth is and possibly doesn't have even common sense.

is not more important than the betterment of the species, no matter how much people cry about it

And it is you who calls someone fascist?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago

Okay let’s break it down.

De- means the opposite of. Growth is when things get bigger. De-growth means shrinking human resource usage.

How can we shrink human resource usage? Two ways:

  1. Shrink the human population. ie genocide.
  2. Shrink the resource usage per person. ie privation.

Address the question. How is “degrowth” not a dog whistle for either killing hundreds of millions of people, or forcing hundreds of millions of people to live in poverty?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How is degrowth realistic at all? And how does degrowth happen in a way that isnt billions of people starving to death?

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Uh, lower birth rates? ...which can be helped along with expanding education and birth control. I'm pretty sure religion and capitalism promote growing populations, if we could reduce the power of either of those, that too could have significant effect.

I find it odd how limited your brain is that you could only conceive of two possibilities, infinite growth or genocide.