this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
775 points (97.3% liked)

politics

18909 readers
4420 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Will Bunch expresses what I've been thinking since Trump was elected. American democracy is under attack from within. The fascists who yearn for an authoritarian government in the media are promoting it, and the media who supposedly don't support it fail to recognize it. They are busy trying to follow the political playbook of the 20th century.

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

Social Democracies would be adequate for humans, but not the planet. It still requires growth, which is no bueno for ecosystems. Selfishly, I would love for mixed economies to attempt sustainability, but the math and timelines don’t make that possible. Massive degrowth will either be implemented by us, or will be forced on us.

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

Oh, from that perspective things remain to be seen. For global warming to actually result in apocalypse, economical, large-scale carbon capture has to be impossible. We just don't know yet, it's a busy field.

I think your certainty is misplaced though.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I hope so. I hope I’m wrong. But the logistics involved do not seem promising. The technology isn’t ready for large scale carbon capture. And the production and materials needed to build it will still use carbon. It’s a carbon conundrum. Geoengineering might buy us time, but growth economies must be dismantled or the problems will persist into the future. This article explains the situation we’re in.

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

We certainly have challenging times ahead, regardless of how things go. No question about that one.

Even rolling out some ideal, sci fi solution today, we have still done some damage that will take time to repair. Heat absorbed by the ocean has built up for years and can only leave so quickly.

I do think a mixed economy can control its growth in a sustainable way, though. Not all economic value needs to be derived heavily from carbon-producing industries. Service economies can create value at a much reduced environmental cost, though their increasing wealth does often come with its own, new threats to the environment.

It's threading a needle, no question about it. But I do think it's within the realm of actual possibility. Where I'm not sure a fully planned and actually well-functioning economy really is. For political reasons, if not practical.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I love it in theory, particularly as our data-processing continues to advance. In practice I think it'd be impossible to implement in my country (US) any time this century without a whole lot of blood in the streets, and a very high likelihood of the attempt failing due to corruption and sabotage, and resulting in a dramatic, reactionary shift in the country's direction to the far right.

In the future though, as our tools improve and attitudes toward tech change, something like this could become feasible. You'd have to deal with modern population decline via immigration, which is naturally unsustainable, but that bridge can be crossed in the future.